Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)

M/S Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd vs M/S Jasbir Singh Chadha (Huf) & Anr on 7 May, 2010

23.2 Plaintiff is already held entitled to recovery of only Rs.15 lakhs from the defendants which is security deposit. The security has to be refunded interest free at the time of completion of contract between the parties. According to defendant the contract was not terminated by the defendant and therefore he is not liable to pay any interest. In the present case it has to be seen that whether contract between the parties had been terminated. The plaintiff has not filed alongwith documents letter for cancellation of the contract between the parties. However on the date of filing of the suit plaintiff has claimed for refund of the security amount shows that the plaintiff has exhibited his intention of termination of contract on the date of filing of the suit. Notice of the same was given to the defendants. Hence notice of the suit to the defendant is sufficient notice of termination of contract between the parties as to principal and agent which is the law laid down under citation titled as Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & Anr. 2011 (183) DLT 712.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 486 - Full Document

Abdul Rehman & Anr vs Mohd.Ruldu & Ors on 27 September, 2012

Abdul Rehman & Anr. v. Mohd. Ruldu & Ors. In Civil Appeal Nos. 7043 of 2012 from Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 24.5 It is noted that the amendment was allowed vide order dated 27.10.2006. The plea of the defendant is that the limitation shall begin to apply as suit to be taken on the date when the amendment was allowed is rejected in view of doctrine of relation back.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 410 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 Next