Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)Section 65 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Har Shankar & Ors. Etc. Etc vs The Dy. Excise & Taxation Commr. & Ors on 21 January, 1975
In State of Haryana v. Jage Ram [(1980) 3
SCC 599], relying on the decision of the Constitution Bench in
Har Shankar v. Deputy Excise and Taxation
Commissioner [(1975) 1 SCC 737], the Apex Court held
that, the respondent therein entered into a contract with the
State authorities with the full knowledge of conditions which
they had to carry out in the conduct of their business, on
which they had willingly and voluntarily embarked. The
occurrence of a commercial difficulty, inconvenience or
hardship in the performance of those conditions, like the sale
of liquor being less in summer than in winter, can provide no
-16-
W.P.(C). No. 26607 of 2021
justification for not complying with the terms of the contract
which they had accepted with open eyes. The respondents
could not, therefore, invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High
Court to avoid the contractual obligations incurred by them
voluntarily.
Srinivas Ram Kumar vs Mahabir Prasad And Others on 9 February, 1951
In Firm Srinivas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad
and others [AIR 1951 SC 177], a decision relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, a Three-Judge Bench of the
Apex Court made reference to the pronouncement of the
Judicial Committee in Babu Raja Mohan Manucha v. Babu
Manzoor [AIR 1943 PC 29]. That appeal arose out of a suit
commenced by the plaintiff appellant to enforce a mortgage
security. The plea of the defendant was that the mortgage was
void. This plea was given effect to by both the lower courts as
well as by the Privy Council. But the Privy Council held that it
was open in such circumstances to the plaintiff to repudiate
the transaction altogether and claim a relief outside it in the
form of restitution under Section 65 of the Indian Contract
Act. Although no such alternative claim was made in the
plaint, the Privy Council allowed it to be advanced and gave a
decree on the ground that the respondent could not be
-17-
W.P.(C). No. 26607 of 2021
prejudiced by such a claim at all and the matter ought not to
be left to a separate suit.
Raja Mohan Manucha vs Manzoor Ahmad Khan on 14 December, 1942
In Firm Srinivas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad
and others [AIR 1951 SC 177], a decision relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, a Three-Judge Bench of the
Apex Court made reference to the pronouncement of the
Judicial Committee in Babu Raja Mohan Manucha v. Babu
Manzoor [AIR 1943 PC 29]. That appeal arose out of a suit
commenced by the plaintiff appellant to enforce a mortgage
security. The plea of the defendant was that the mortgage was
void. This plea was given effect to by both the lower courts as
well as by the Privy Council. But the Privy Council held that it
was open in such circumstances to the plaintiff to repudiate
the transaction altogether and claim a relief outside it in the
form of restitution under Section 65 of the Indian Contract
Act. Although no such alternative claim was made in the
plaint, the Privy Council allowed it to be advanced and gave a
decree on the ground that the respondent could not be
-17-
W.P.(C). No. 26607 of 2021
prejudiced by such a claim at all and the matter ought not to
be left to a separate suit.
South East Asia Marine Engineering And ... vs Oil India Limited on 11 May, 2020
In South East Asia Marine Engineering and
Construction Limited v. Oil India Limited [(2020) 5 SCC
164], the Apex Court held that, when the parties have not
provided for what would take place when an event which
renders the performance of the contract impossible, then
Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act applies. When the act
contracted for becomes impossible, then under Section 56,
the parties are exempted from further performance and the
contract becomes void.
Satyabrata Ghose vs Mugneeram Bangur & Co., And Another on 16 November, 1953
As held in Satyabrata Ghose v.
Mugneeram Bangur and Co. [AIR 1954 SC 44], in
deciding cases in India, the only doctrine that we have to go
by is that of supervening impossibility or illegality as laid down
in Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, taking the word
'impossible' in its practical and not literal sense. It must be
borne in mind, however, that Section 56 lays down a rule of
positive law and does not leave the matter to be determined
according to the intention of the parties. In India, Contract
Act, 1872 had already recognised the harsh consequences of
such frustration to some extent and had provided for a limited
-18-
W.P.(C). No. 26607 of 2021
mechanism to ameliorate the same under Section 65 of the
Contract Act. Section 65 provides that, when an agreement is
discovered to be void, or when a contract becomes void, any
person who has received any advantage under such
agreement or contract is bound to restore it, or to make
compensation for it, to the person from whom he received it.
The aforesaid clause provides the basis of restitution for
'failure of basis'. The aforesaid provision addresses limited
circumstances wherein an agreement is void ab initio or the
contract becomes subsequently void.
M/S. Alopi Parshad & Sons, Ltd vs The Union Of India on 20 January, 1960
In the case of
Alopi Parshad and Sons Ltd. v. Union of India [AIR
1960 SC 588] this Court has held that the Contract Act,
1872 does not enable a party to a contract to ignore the
express covenants thereof. It is held that the Contract
Act does not permit a party to claim payment of
consideration for performance of contract at rates
different from the stipulated rates, on some vague plea
of equity. It is held that in the performance of a contract,
one often faces, in the course of carrying it out, a turn of
-20-
W.P.(C). No. 26607 of 2021
events which are not anticipated, e.g., an abnormal rise
or fall in prices, sudden depreciation of currency, an
unexpected obstacle to execution or the like. It is held
that these do not affect the bargain that has been made.