Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)
State Of A.P. And Ors. vs Tangudu Varaprasada Rao on 15 March, 2004 cites

Badri Prasad vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another on 16 March, 1965

In the case on hand also the contract was concluded and the plaintiff-respondent was put in possession of the cashew nut tope and by no act of the appellant-defendant the possession the respondent over the land was not disturbed. It is not the case of the respondent that he is not in possession of the tope till the end of lease. In fact at the end of the lease period he could collect the remaining produce. Hence following the above judgment it cannot be held that the agreement of lease is Void or voidable. The Government Pleader also cited a judgment in Badri Prasad v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., . In this case the Respondent No. 2 became highest bidder of cut timber and arcat trees of specified area of forest in the auction held on 24-12-1956. As per the Rule 18 of the Forest Contract Rules the entire coupe was divided into four Sections ABCD. The contractor-second respondent began his operations in Section A of the coupe in the last week of February, 1957 and committed default in payment of second instalment though demanded till 25-4-1957 which was due on 1-3-1957. On 25-4-1957 the forest officials told the second respondent not to remove the forest produce in view of non-payment of second instalment. In the meantime in forest fire broke out and the cut timber sold to second respondent was burnt and the goods purchased by second respondent ceased to exist. So he did not pay the remaining 2nd,3rd and 4th instalments. At that stage the surety of the second ' respondent- the appellant in the case filed suit for declaration of his non-liability to pay the amount of instalments remaining due from second respondent and for an injunction against the first respondent State from recovering that amount from him by contending that the contractor had not been put in possession of the cut timber sold to him except of such timber which had been in Section A of coupe No. 9. Therefore there had been no transfer of property in the timber sold to him and that he was therefore not liable for paying the amounts due on 2nd, 3rd and 4th instalments. The suit was dismissed by the High Court on appeal. Originally the contention of the appellant that the cut timber sold and existing in Sections B,C, and D of the coupe had not passed to second respondent since two hammer marks were not put on the cut portion of the fell trees before they are actually taken away from the forest area. On that ground the appellant contended that he is not liable to pay the remaining three instalments. Their Lordships observed in Para 19 as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 73 - R Dayal - Full Document

Raja Dhruv Dev Chand vs Harmohinder Singh & Anr on 1 March, 1968

Events which discharge a contract do not invalidate a concluded transfer see Raja Dhruiv Dev Chand v. Harmohinder Singh, , by holding that there was an agreement of lease but not the lease. But the lease deed was not executed and registered. Section 56 of the Contract Act attracts to the facts of this case and held that the object of the lease became impossible because of the supervening events. As per the terms of the agreement between the parties taking possession of the property became impossible performance. Having taken that view their Lordships agreed with the view taken by the Courts below that the contract has become impossible to perform.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 34 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next