CONTRACT ACT, 1872
Agreement--Suit for recovery--Whether Civil Court can alter terms and conditions of agreement between parties--No--Plaintiff-sheller firm was not granted benefit of additional driage of 3% by Head Office of defendants--Civil Court not competent to grant such a benefit on ground that it had been granted to other similarly situated shellers/millers of the area--As it amounted to altering terms of agreement arrived at between parties. ; Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited & Anr. v. M/s Shri Hargobind Rice and General Mills, Cantt. Road, Faridkot,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 540
Showing posts with label Contract Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Contract Act. Show all posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Contract Act, S.2--Invalid contract
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
Regular Second Appeal No.200 of 2009
Surta Singh & Ors.
v.
Mohinder Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 19/08/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. N.S. Sodhi, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Agreement for Sell--Property in dispute was under mortgage--Defendant is not debarred from executing the agreement.
(A) Contract Act, S.2--Invalid contract--Consideration--Seller agreed to sell the property in favour of vendee at a price lower than the one prevailing in the market--In the absence of production of such evidence it, could not be said that the agreement was executed for meager amount--Contract is valid. (P.14)
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963--Specific performance--Agreement for Sell--Property in dispute was under mortgage--Defendant is not debarred from executing the agreement. (P.13)
(C) Evidence Act, 1872, S.3--Civil Procedure Code, 1908--Pleadings--Fraud--Civil dispute--The particulars of fraud were required to be incorporated, in the plaint, and proved as in criminal case--The bald statement that fraud was committed upon him, did not, in any way, go to prove that the transaction was a fraudulent one. (P.12)
(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100--Second Appeal--Cannot become a third trial on facts--High Court to hear the second appeal only on substantial question of law.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
Regular Second Appeal No.200 of 2009
Surta Singh & Ors.
v.
Mohinder Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 19/08/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. N.S. Sodhi, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Agreement for Sell--Property in dispute was under mortgage--Defendant is not debarred from executing the agreement.
(A) Contract Act, S.2--Invalid contract--Consideration--Seller agreed to sell the property in favour of vendee at a price lower than the one prevailing in the market--In the absence of production of such evidence it, could not be said that the agreement was executed for meager amount--Contract is valid. (P.14)
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963--Specific performance--Agreement for Sell--Property in dispute was under mortgage--Defendant is not debarred from executing the agreement. (P.13)
(C) Evidence Act, 1872, S.3--Civil Procedure Code, 1908--Pleadings--Fraud--Civil dispute--The particulars of fraud were required to be incorporated, in the plaint, and proved as in criminal case--The bald statement that fraud was committed upon him, did not, in any way, go to prove that the transaction was a fraudulent one. (P.12)
(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100--Second Appeal--Cannot become a third trial on facts--High Court to hear the second appeal only on substantial question of law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)