|

State of Madras v. Jayalakshmi Rice Mill Contractors Co. and Ors.

State of Madras v. Jayalakshmi Rice Mill Contractors Co. and Ors. AIR 1959 AP 352 (Difference between agency and license) FACTS: The Food Procurement Order, authorised the licensees (rice millers in the Districts of East Godavari, West Godavari and Krishna) to procure rice and paddy from, the producers to sell them in the market at…

|

Narandas Morardas Gaziwala & Ors vs S. P. Am. Papammal& Anr.

Narandas Morardas Gaziwala & Ors. v. S. P. Am. Papammal & Anr. 1966 SCR 38 (agent’s right to claim for accounts) FACTS: Narandas Morardas Gaziwala and Ors. a partnership firm, carrying on business in lace and silver thread at Surat had dealings with another firm, Krishna and Company – who acted as their agents for…

|

Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co. v. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Kuchwar Lime & Stone Co. v. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. & Anr. 1969 AIR 193 (Implied Agency) FACTS: A quantity of coal was booked by a Colliery to the appellant Company carriage to Banjari station on the respondent Railway’s line and the freight on the consignment was to be paid by the appellant…

|

Dominion of India v. Raj Bahadur Seth Bhikhraj Jaipuria

Dominion of India v. Raj Bahadur Seth Bhikhraj Jaipuria AIR 1957 Pat 586 (Time, Frustration, Section 299 (1) and 175 (3)) FACTS: Three contracts were entered into by the plaintiff (P) with the Railway (R) for supply of food-grains. Deliveries were to be made at any station of ER[1] in Bihar.[2] These three identical contracts…

|

Khushal Khemgar Shah & Ors. v. Khorshed Banu Dadiba Boatwalla & Anr.

Khushal Khemgar Shah & Ors. v. Khorshed Banu Dadiba Boatwalla & Anr. 1970 SCR (3) 689 (whether goodwill asset or not) Facts D who was one of eight partners in a firm, died on February 20, 1957. By virtue of a provision in the partnership deed, the business of the firm was continued by the…

|

Lala Shanti Swarup v. Munshi Singh

Lala Shanti Swarup v. Munshi Singh 1967 SCR (2) 312 (Section 124 of Indian Contract Act, Implied Indemnity) FACTS: The plaintiff-respondents (PR) mortgage their land to Bansidhar and Khub Chand (BK) for Rs. 12,000. Half of this mortgaged property was then sold by the real owner (PR) to Shanti Saran(S) (defendant-appellant, DA) at Rs. 16,000….