Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)Satyabrata Ghose vs Mugneeram Bangur & Co., And Another on 16 November, 1953
6. Learned Counsel has taken resort to Section 56 of the Indian Arbitration Act that provides that when performance of the contract becomes impossible or unlawful by intervention of a subsequent event then doctrine of frustration comes into operation. The counsel has relied upon Satyabrata Ghose Vs. (SIC)Mugneeram Bangur and Co. wherein it was held that if and when there is frustration the dissolution of the contract occurs automatically. It does not depend, as does rescission of a contract on the ground of repudiation or breach or on the choice or election of either party. It depends on the effect of what has actually happened on the possibility of performing the contract. What happens generally in such cases is that none party claims that the contract has been frustrated while the other party denies it. The issue has got to be decided by the Court ex post facto on the actual circumstances of the case.
Union Of India vs Steel Stock Holders' Syndicate, Poona on 1 March, 1976
12. However reliance has been placed by the respondent on Union of India Vs. The Steel Stock Holders Syndicate, Poona wherein it was held that the loss of profit or loss of a particular market has been held by a number of decisions to be a remote damage and can be awarded only if it is proved that the party which is aware or had knowledge that such a loss would be caused. In the instant case not only the difference in facts is that of mist and mast but also the nature of contract was altogether different. In the above referred case the interpretation of Section 78 and 73 of the Carriers Act was involved as it was a case where there was delay in the delivery of the goods and inquiries made by the plaintiff revealed that the goods had not been delivered by the Railways.
Union Of India And Others vs Manager M/S Jain And Associates on 6 February, 2001
16. The reliance placed by the counsel on Union of India Vs. Jain Associates is misplaced as in the said case the Arbitrator had declined to award the interest and it was observed that Section 29 of the Arbitration Act carries with it the embargo that it shall not be permissible for the Court to award the pendente lite interest prior to the date of the passing of the decree. It was held that Section 34 empowers the Court to grant interest pendente lite and future interest till the date of the realisation. However the ratio of the above authority is not applicable in a case where the Arbitrator has considered the claim to the award of interest and rejected the same but where the Arbitrator declines to return any finding in this regard because non-reference or because of assumed non-jurisdiction, interest can be awarded.
Madan Lal Anand Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 October, 1989
17. Almost similar proposition of law cropped up for decision before this Court in S.375/91 entitled Shri Madan Lal Vs. Union of India where incidentally the parties were the same as are in the instant case and the finding of the Arbitrator was the same as is in the instant case.
Section 29 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
1