Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)
K.S. Lakshminarayana Setty N. ... vs State Of Mysore Represented By Deputy ... on 29 January, 1965
cites
Harichand Mancharam vs Govind Luxman Gokhale on 20 December, 1922
21. To the same effect is the decision of the Privy Council in AIR 1923 PC 47, Harichand and Mancharam v. Govind Luxman.
Article 290 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 367 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 52 in Telangana Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 [Entire Act]
Section 80 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Currimbhoy And Company vs L.A. Creet on 22 November, 1932
20. Then I have got to examine the other two contentions on which the validity of the contract has been challenged. They relate to paras 5 and 7 of the tender notice. The former requires a deposit of Rs. 225/- to be made by the plaintiff, and the latter stipulates that it should execute an agreement on a stamped paper. Mr. Ullal contends that since these two conditions have not been satisfied, the contract is invalid. In my opinion, this submission cannot be accepted since, once the contract is completed and concluded between the parties, then the subsequent requirements relating to deposit of security and the execution of an agreement on a stamped paper being formal, would not make the contract invalid which is otherwise valid. It has been held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Currimbhoy & Co. Ltd. v. L. A. Creet, AIR 1933 PC 29 as follows: --
Government of India Act, 1935
1