Promissory Estoppel VI

Crabb v. Arun DC, [1976] 1 Ch 179 (Court of Appeal). The requirements of Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel have also been formulated in ‘Chitty on Contracts’, 32nd Edition. Combe v. Combe, [1951] 2 KB 215 has been noticed to be inconsistent [Wyvern Development, Re, [1974] 1 WLR 1097; Tungsten Electric Co Ltd. v. Tool Metal […]

Read more "Promissory Estoppel VI"

Principles of Natural Justice VI

A lot of noise but no music! The present case is a classic one where multiple proceedings have been initiated but have resulted in no culmination over a period just short of a decade. 1. Principles of Natural Justice requires only a substantial compliance and not every miniscule violation would spell illegality [Chairman, Board of […]

Read more "Principles of Natural Justice VI"

Exclusion of Votes

Constitution Bench in Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda v. Viswanath Reddy, AIR 1969 SC 604 cautioned, the rule for exclusion of votes, secured by corrupt practices by the returned candidate, in the computation of the total votes and the consequential declaration of the candidate who secured the next highest number of votes as duly elected, can be […]

Read more "Exclusion of Votes"

Day-Fraction

There can be no doubt, the principle which appears to have evolved over a period of time is, the law frowns upon determining a day with reference to its fractions. The principle, ‘fractions of the day’ are eschewed from consideration, is not a universal principle which knows no exceptions. Clearly the context and the purpose […]

Read more "Day-Fraction"

Consortium II

“Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., (2018) 18 SCC 130 explained the concept of ‘consortium’. United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satvinder Kaur, (2020) SCC Online 410 reaffirmed the view. Three-Judge Bench further laid down, ‘loss of love and affection’ is comprehended in ‘loss of consortium’. Hence, there is no justification to award compensation towards ‘loss […]

Read more "Consortium II"

Act of Transformation

Most jurists draw distinction between ‘direct application’ of treaties in domestic law, and national legal systems that mandate and require ‘act of transformation’ for an international treaty to apply and be a part of domestic law; ‘direct application’ means and mandates that the treaty norms, either wholly or to some extent, are directly treated as […]

Read more "Act of Transformation"

The Coparcenary Concept

“The basic concept of coparcenary is based upon common ownership by coparceners. When it remains undivided, share of coparcener is not certain. Nobody can claim with precision, extent of his right in undivided property. Coparcener cannot claim any precise share as interest in coparcenary is fluctuating. It increases and diminishes by death and birth in […]

Read more "The Coparcenary Concept"

The Magic in Masala

‘Rexona’ or ‘Reebok’ prima facie appear to be invented or coined words. They may command a higher degree of protection if there is a contest. As regards ‘Magic’/’Magical’ and ‘Masala’, the words are commonly used in the food and cosmetic industry. Therefore, neither ITC nor Nestlé can claim any monopoly. No person can appropriate common […]

Read more "The Magic in Masala"

First Information Report II

Broadcasts on Republic TV on 16.04.2020 and R Bharat on 21.04.2020, in relation to an incident at Gadchinchle [Palgarh, Maharashtra], led to lodging of multiple First Information Reports against Arnab Ranjan Goswami. The broadcast is the foundation of the allegation, offences have been committed. To allow a journalist to be subjected to pursuit of remedies […]

Read more "First Information Report II"

The Doctrine of Mutuality 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"

The Doctrine of Frustration of Contract I / Section 56 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 III

“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"

Promissory Estoppel V

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"