Sannidhi Gundayya vs Illoori Subbayya And Anr. on 6 May, 1926
The cases reported in 'Sannadhi Gundayya v. I. Subbayya', 51 M L J 663 and 24 C W N 703 were cited. The contention was negatived & the learned Judges observed as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.33 seconds)India General Navigation And Railway ... vs The Eastern Assam Company Ltd. on 3 March, 1920
17. As was observed by Bailhanche, J. in 'Re Comptoir Commercial-Anverois & Power Son & Co.', (1920) 1 K B 868 at p, 879,
"The limitation on the right of the Court to imply a term in a contract cannot, I think, be better expressed than in the language of A. T. Lawrence, J. in ' Scottish Navigation Co. v. Souter & Co.', approved by Lord Sumner in 'Bank Line v. Capel & Co. A. T. Lawrence J. puts it thus:
Section 56 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Samuel Fitz And Company Limited vs The Standard Cotton And Silk Weaving Co. on 1 March, 1945
In this connection Mr. Sanyal has referred to the case of 'Samuel Fitze Co. v. Standard Cotton & Silk Weaving Co., Calicut AIR (32) 1945 Mad 291. In that case, a contract was entered into between a seller & a buyer for supply of tapestries made according to certain specifications. The buyer informed the seller that he intended to sell the tapestries in Australia. The Australian Govt., however, prohibited the import of these goods except under certain conditions, resulting in the loss of the market to the buyer. At the request of the buyer, the contract was cancelled but the seller claimed damages for loss of profit. It was contended on behalf of the buyer that the foundation of the contract was that the goods should be re-sold in Australia.
Pragdas Mathuradas vs Jeewanlal, Limited on 8 June, 1948
This observation has been quoted with approval by the Privy Council in 'Pragdas Mathuradas v. Jeewanlal Ltd.', (1929) 53 C W N 226.
1