Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.30 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September, 1990
Shrilekha
Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. [(1991) 1 SCC 212 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 742]
was a case of mass termination of District Government Counsel in the
State of U.P. It was a case of termination from a post involving public
element. It was a case of non-government servant holding a public office,
on account of which it was held to be a matter within the public law
field. This decision too does not affirm the principle now canvassed by
the learned counsel. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in case of
contracts freely entered into with the State, like the present ones,
there is no room for invoking the doctrine of fairness and
reasonableness against one party to the contract (State), for the
purpose of altering or adding to the terms and conditions of the
contract, merely because it happens to be the State. In such cases, the
KL,J
wpno.2648 of 2021 &batch
20
mutual rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the terms of
the contracts (which may be statutory in some cases) and the laws
relating to contracts. It must be remembered that these contracts are
entered into pursuant to public auction, floating of tenders or by
negotiation. There is no compulsion on anyone to enter into these
contracts. It is voluntary on both sides. There can be no question of
the State power being involved in such contracts. It bears repetition
to say that the State does not guarantee profit to the licensees in such
contracts. There is no warranty against incurring losses. It is a
business for the licensees. Whether they make profit or incur loss is
no concern of the State. In law, it is entitled to its money under the
contract. It is not as if the licensees are going to pay more to the
State in case they make substantial profits. We reiterate that what we
have said hereinabove is in the context of contracts entered into between
the State and its citizens pursuant to public auction, floating of tenders or
by negotiation. It is not necessary to say more than this for the purpose of
these cases. What would be the position in the case of contracts entered
into otherwise than by public auction, floating of tenders or negotiation,
we need not express any opinion herein.
The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
Dr. S.K.Jhunjhunwala vs Mrs. Dhanwanti Kaur on 1 October, 2018
v. No professional can be made liable for his/her opinion, more so,
when the valuation report is not binding on the Respondent
Banks. Imposition of an indemnity clause is arbitrary as no
other professional (lawyer, doctor, chartered accountant) is
mandatorily required to indemnify for their opinions. Reliance
is placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab5, S.K.
Jhunjhunwala v. Dhanwanti Kaur6and CBI v. K.
Narayana Rao7.
Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986
KL,J
wpno.2648 of 2021 &batch
13
From the decision in Brojo Nath Ganguly (Supra), it can be said that a
contract can only be interfered on the ground of unconscionability, if the
term(s) of the contract are substantially unfair, monstrous, tainted with
illegality and which shock the conscience of the Court.
The State Of Karnataka By Its Chief ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu By Its Chief ... on 16 February, 2018
In other words, as held by the Supreme Court in State
of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu12, unconscionability of a contract
depends on unconscientious use of superior power over another party
who may be ignorant or be in a weak bargaining position.
Phulchand Exports Ltd vs Ooo Patriot on 12 October, 2011
15. The Supreme Court in Phulchand Exports Ltd. v. O.O.O.
Patriot13 held that where business men are involved who are aware of
the nature of bargain and are equally situated, the transaction cannot be
termed as unconscionable. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
Asstt. Excise Commissioner vs Issac Peter on 22 February, 1994
In Excise Commr. v. Issac Peter14, the Supreme Court held as
follows:
Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons vs Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 27 April, 1989
In Dwarkadas Marfatia v. Board of Trustees of the Port of
Bombay [(1989) 3 SCC 293] it was held that where a public authority is
exempted from the operation of a statute like Rent Control Act, it must
be presumed that such exemption from the statute is coupled with the
duty to act fairly and reasonably. The decision does not say that the terms
and conditions of contract can be varied, added or altered by importing
the said doctrine. It may be noted that though the said principle was
affirmed, no relief was given to the appellant in that case.