Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed (1887): When at the desire of the promisor, promisee does something then it is valid consideration.

Case NameKedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed, (1887) ILR 14 Cal 64
CourtBefore the High Court of Calcutta
Decided onNovember 26, 1886
BenchWC Pethekam, Beverley
Author of the JudgementWC Pethekam
Relevant lawsSection 2(D), 25 of the Indian contracts act
AbstractWhen at the desire of the promisor, promisee does something; it is valid consideration under section 2(d) of the ICA. In the following case, on the desire of the defendant promising to pay money, the plaintiff entered into another contract. Hence, this forms valid consideration under the act and defendants were held liable to pay the amount promised.
Author of the BriefAarsh Chokshi, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KeywordsPromise, Consideration, Gratuity, Funds.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Nur Ali Dubash v Abdul Ali (1892): Calcutta High Court on difference between partial and total restrain of trade.

CASE NAME Nur Ali Dubash v Abdul Ali, (1892) ILR 19 Cal 765
COURT Before the High Court of Calcutta
DECIDED ON March 4, 1892
BENCH Justice Pigot  and Justice Macpherson
AUTHOR OF THE JUDGEMENT Justice PA Macpherson
ABSTRACT

In the present case, there was an agreement between parties with regards to restraint of trade. Restraint of trade is dealt under section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Restraint of any lawful profession or business or trade of any kind is considered as void under law. However, with changing times, the courts have considered partial restraint of trade to be valid under the law if found to be reasonable.

According to the facts of the present case, the court found that the partial restraint observed in the agreement was not unreasonable and thus void.

AUTHOR OF THE BRIEF Aarsh Chokshi, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KEYWORDS Section 27-Indian Contract Act, Partial Restraint of trade, Total Restraint of trade.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Pournami Oil Mills v. The State Of Kerala(1987): Supreme Court on Exercise of Statutory Powers by the Government.

CASE NAME Pournami Oil Mills v. The State Of Kerala, 1987 AIR 590
COURT Before the Supreme Court of India
DECIDED ON December 19, 1986
BENCH M Ranganathan
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER Soli Sorabjee, GV Iyer, AS Nambiar, S Kumar, EMS Anam, Rn Kewani
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT TSK Iyer, VJ Francis, NM Popli
ABSTRACT

In the present case certain industries were exempted from taxes under the Kerala Sales Tax Act. With a view to promoting industrialisation, Section 10 of the said Act empowered the State Government to make exemption or reduction in tax for certain industries. Subsequently, the Government of Kerala issued two notification which granted exemptions as mentioned under section 10. However, out of two, only one notification mentioned about the application of section 10 of the act while the other did not. The application of Doctrine of Estoppel was in question in the present case, which was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court of India.

AUTHOR OF THE BRIEF Aarsh Chokshi, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KEYWORDS Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, Statutory Powers, Section 10 (Kerala Sales Tax Act).

(more…)

Continue Reading
Close Menu