Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)Jugtanund Misser vs Nerghan Singh And Anr. on 15 September, 1880
The meaning of the words "a condition precedent" has been considered in a number of cases referred to by my learned brother, Jugtanund Misser v. Nerghan Singh (1880) I.L.R. 6 Cal.
Vishnu Ramchandra Joshi vs Ganesh Krishna Sathe on 7 January, 1921
19, Vishnu Ramchandra v. Ganesh Krishna (1921) I.L.R 45 Bom. 1155, s.c. 23 Bom.
Walter Mitchell vs A. K. Tennent on 23 April, 1925
L.R. 488, Walter Mitchell v. A.K. Tennent (1923) I.L.R. 52 Cal. 677 and others. It is not necessary for me to go into them in detail. The general effect of these decisions is that a condition precedent within the meaning of proviso (3) to Section 92 is a condition without the fulfillment of which there is in effect no written agreement at all, and no contractual obligation of any description arises. It cannot be said that that applies to the case here. The obligation to make these annual payments to the plaintiff admittedly has arisen and payments have been made under it for four years already. Mr. Divatia argued that the annuity bond could be construed as an agreement under which the liability arises at the time of each and every installment when it becomes payable, that is to say twice a year. The point is an interesting one but it is not one which, in my opinion, can take this case out of the authority of the series of cases to which I have referred. It cannot be said that the alleged agreement could be regarded as a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under the contract.
Sathyabhama vs Kesavacharya on 1 April, 1915
The case before us is similar to the case of Bhup Singh v. Lachman Kunwar, and clearly distinguishable from that of Sathyabhama v. Kesavacharya.
Tiruvengada Ayyangar vs Rangasami Nayak on 24 July, 1883
433, Tiruvengada v. Rangasami (1883) I.L.R. 7 Mad.
Ramjibun Serowgy vs Oghore Nath Chatterjee on 19 March, 1897
19 and Ramjibun Serowgy V. Oghore Nath Chatterjee (1897) I.L.R. 25 Cal.
1