Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)Provash Chandra Dalui & Anr vs Biswanath Banerjee & Anr on 3 April, 1989
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the mining lease owner and
the new contractors submitted that, in terms of the original contract, a
renewal could be made only in writing. Reliance is placed on Provash
Chandra Dalui and Anr. v. Biswanath Banerjee and Anr., [1989] Supp.
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Lalji Tandon (Dead) on 3 November, 2003
1 SCC
487 and State of U.P. and Ors. v. Lalji Tandon (dead) Thr. LRs., [2004] 1
SCC 1. The contention advanced is that after expiry of the term of the
contract, under some ad hoc arrangements with the owner, even if the old
contractor might have made some extractions of ore and paid price that
cannot be held to be an act of renewal of the contract. The mining lease
owner by an express notice sent in writing has refused to renew and
terminated the contract of the old contractor. Thereafter, he has entered
into a written contract on higher price with the new contractors. The old
contractor, therefore, has no right in presenti to remain in possession of
the mine and to operate it. According to learned counsel for the new
contractors, there is no counter suit filed by the old contractor to
specifically enforce any alleged agreement of renewal of the contract and
such relief cannot be legally granted in view of the bar contained in
clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act
which provides that a Contract in its nature determinable' is
unenforceable.
Section 14 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
1