Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.38 seconds)
P.K. Achuthan And Anr. vs State Bank Of Travancore, Calicut on 11 October, 1974 cites

Ittavira Mathai vs Varkey Varkey And Another on 15 January, 1963

It was held in that case that the said provision when considered against the background of the several other clauses contained in the concerned kuri variola was "undoubtedly penal and unconscionable" These two appeals have been referred to a Full Bench since the Division Bench before which these cases came up for hearing was of opinion that the decision in 1971 Ker LT 231 = (AIR 1972 Ker 21) which was strongly relied on by the appellant herein requires reconsideration, particularly in the light of the observations contained in the judgment of another Division Bench of this court reported in Mathai v. Varkey, 1973 Ker LJ 694.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 153 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document

Vaithinatha Iyer (Dead) And Ors. vs Govindaswami Odayar And Ors. on 11 August, 1921

In Vaithinatha Iyer v. Govindaswami Odayar, AIR 1922 Mad 67. Oldfield and Ramesam, JJ. referred to the special nature of the relationship that exists between the stake-holder land the subscribers of a chit fund and upheld the validity of a provision contained in the kuri agreement that prized subscribers who failed to pay their subscriptions were liable to pay the whole amount on demand with interest at 1 1/2% per mensem. The contention that the said stipulation was in the nature of a penalty was rejected by the learned Judges following the view taken in an earlier unreported decision of the same court in S. A. No. 23 of 1902.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Poosathurai vs Kannappa Chettiar on 18 November, 1919

17. Any question as to the uncons-tionableness of a stipulation contained in en agreement would properly arise for consideration only if it is shown that the relationship between the contracting parties was such that one of them was in a position to dominate the will of the other and that he had made use of such position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other. It is only in cases where both the conditions mentioned above are clearly established by the person who seeks to avoid the transaction and the court further finds that the bargain is in itself unconscibnalble that the impugned provision will be held to be unenforceable on the ground of unconscionableness. See Poosathurai v. Kannappa Chettiar, ILR 43 Mad 546 = (AIR 1920 PC 65), Ladli Parshad Jaiswal v. The Kernal Distillery Co., Ltd. Karnal.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 26 - Full Document
1   2 Next