cites: 32366295

Section 56 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 863

The Indian Contract Act, 1872

Union of India - Act Cites 0 - Cited by 11724

Section 32 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 270

Section 34 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 628

Satyabrata Ghose vs Mugneeram Bangur & Co., And Another on 16 November, 1953

"47. We are, therefore, of the view that neither was the fundamental basis of the contract dislodged nor was any frustrating event, except for a rise in the price of coal, excluded by Clause 12.4, pointed out. Alternative modes of performance were available, albeit at a higher price. This does not lead to the contract, as a whole, being frustrated. Consequently, we are of the view that neither Clause 12.3 nor 12.7, referable to Section 32 of the Contract Act, will apply so as to enable the grant of compensatory tariff to the respondents. Dr Singhvi, however, argued that even if Clause 12 is held inapplicable, the law laid down on frustration under Section 56 will apply so as to give the respondents the necessary relief on the ground of force majeure. Having once held that Clause 12.4 applies as a result of which rise in the price of fuel cannot be regarded as a force majeure event contractually, it is difficult to appreciate a submission that in the alternative Section 56 will apply. As has been held in particular, in Satyabrata Ghose case [Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co., 1954 SCR 310 : AIR 1954 SC 44] , when a contract contains a force majeure clause which on construction by the Court is held attracted to the facts of the case, Section 56 can have no application.

Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 214 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

M/S Msk Projects (I)(Jv) Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 21 July, 2011

In MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (2011)10 SCC 573: 2012 3 SCC (Civ) 818, the Court held : (SCC pp. 581-82, para 17) "17. If the arbitrator commits an error in the construction of the contract, that is an error within his jurisdiction. But if he wanders outside the contract and deals with matters not allotted to him, he commits a jurisdictional error. Extrinsic evidence is admissible in such cases because the dispute is not something which arises under or in relation to the contract or dependent on the construction of the contract or to be determined within the award. The ambiguity of the award can, in such cases, be resolved by admitting extrinsic evidence. The rationale of this rule is that the nature of the dispute is something which has to be determined outside and independent of what appears in the award. Such a jurisdictional error needs to be proved by evidence extrinsic to the award.

Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 191 - B S Chauhan - Full Document