“In Chandler v. Webster,  1 KB 493 Mr. Chandler rented space from Mr. Webster for viewing the coronation procession of King Edward VII to be held on 26th June, 1902. Mr. Chandler had paid part consideration for the same. However, due to the King falling ill, the coronation was postponed. As Mr. Webster insisted […]Read more "The Doctrine of Frustration of Contract II"
“The Doctrine of Mutuality traces its origin from the basic principle that a man cannot engage into a business with himself. “When a number of individuals agree to contribute funds for a common purpose and stipulate that their contributions so far as not required for that purpose shall be repaid to them, I cannot conceive […]Read more "The Doctrine of Mutuality II"
“This Court in Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co., AIR 1954 SC 44 considered the applicability of Sections 32 and 56 while considering the Doctrine of Frustration of Contract. Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. v. Khyaliram Jagannath, AIR 1968 SC 522 held, if the contract contains implied or expressly a term according to which it […]Read more "The Doctrine of Frustration of Contract I / Section 56 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 III"
Kasinka Trading v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 274. Shrijee Sales Corporation v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 398. STO v. Shree Durga Oil Mills, (1998) 1 SCC 572. State of Rajasthan v. Mahaveer Oil Industries, (1999) 4 SCC 357. Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2011) 3 SCC 193. “This […]Read more "Promissory Estoppel V"
“The maxim is quite well-known. The rule flowing from the maxim ‘generalia specialibus non derogant’ has been i) considered in Hari Shankar Jain, (1978) 4 SCC 16 and ii) explained in Mary Seward v. Owner of “Vera Cruz”, (1884) 10 AC 59, 68. “Where there are general words in a later legislation capable of reasonable […]Read more "Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant"
“By specifically enacting a provision under Sub-Section (3) of Section 13, with a specific clarification that violation of the Principles of Natural Justice shall not be called in question where the procedure prescribed under Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 13 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been followed or complied with, the intention […]Read more "The Plea of Limitation XII: Written Statements, District Consumer Forums II"
Five Judges in Dr. Shah Faesal v. Union of India, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1099 of 2019] have decided the following. “The rule of per incuriam means a Judgment passed in ignorance of a relevant statute or any other binding authority [See, Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd., 1944 KB 718 (CA)]. The view that […]Read more "Per Incuriam III"