| | | |

Dhodha House Vs. S.K. Maingi & Patel Field Marshal Industries and Ors. Vs. P.M. Diesel Limited

ByAnkit Rastogi

Dhodha House Vs. S.K. Maingi & Patel Field Marshal Industries and Ors. Vs. P.M. Diesel Limited (2006) 9 SCC 41 In this matter, there were two civil appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Facts: 1st Civil Appeal Appellant filed a suit against the Respondent to protect his copyright, trade marks and common law rights as…

| | | |

BLUEBERRY BOOKS & ORS. v. GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS.

ByAnkit Rastogi

BLUEBERRY BOOKS & ORS. v. GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS. 2014 (58) PTC 62 In 2003, the Plaintiffs published a series of books under the name ‘Moral Stories’ in 4 Parts. They claimed that the stories contained in the aforementioned books are original literary and artistic works of the Plaintiffs and are protected under…

| |

Case List: Binding Nature of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)

ByVivek Kumar Verma

Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.,  Citation: [2010] 156 CompCas 455 (SC), (2010) 7 SCC 1 Decided on: 07.05.2010 Issue: Whether the MoU entered into amongst the family members of the Promoter was binding upon the corporate entity Relevant Extract(s):  “MoU is not technically binding between RIL and RNRL. It is not in dispute that MoU…
| |

Difference between Indemnity and Guarantee

ByVivek Kumar Verma

Difference between Indemnity and Guarantee Indemnity Guarantee Section 124 of Indian Contract Act: a contract by which one party promises to save others from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person Section 126 of Indian Contract Act: a contract to perform the promise, or…
|

Chhunna Mal Ram Nath vs. Mool Chand Ram Bhagat

ByVivek Kumar Verma

Chhunna Mal Ram Nath vs.  Mool Chand Ram Bhagat (1928) 30 BOMLR 837 Key Words: breach, recovery of damages, sale, delivery, dispensing with the performance FACTS Plaintiffs entered into contract for taking deliveries of the goods packed in wooden boxes from the defendants, which latter was to secure from London. Since British government prohibited the…

|

Kuju Collieries Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand Mines Ltd. and Ors.

ByVivek Kumar Verma

Kuju Collieries Ltd. vs. Jharkhand Mines Ltd. and Ors. AIR 1974 SC 1892 Key Words: illegal purpose, agreement forbidden by law, subsequent discovery, mistake FACTS Plaintiff entered into a contract for lease of coal mines from the defendant in lieu of consideration money (which was paid there and then); however, the deed was hit with…

|

Jagannath Patnaik vs Sri Pitambar Bhupati Harichandan

ByVivek Kumar Verma

Jagannath Patnaik vs. Sri Pitambar Bhupati Harichandan AIR 1954 Ori 241 Key Words: implied condition, agency FACTS Defendant was the heir of the property of the deceased who had before his death employed plaintiff as the ‘dewan’ of the said property for a continuous period of 7 years. Plaintiff brought the present suit when defendant terminated…

|

Union of India Vs. Kishorilal Gupta and Bros.

ByVivek Kumar Verma

Union of India Vs. Kishorilal Gupta and Bros. AIR 1959 SC 1362 Key Words: novation, substitution, consensus ad idem FACTS Plaintiff entered into three settlement contracts with the government after the breach of the original contracts containing the arbitration clause, such that first of them provided “the contract on payment of amount mentioned shall stand…

|

Manohar Singh and Sons Vs. Raksha Karamchari Coop. Gr. H. Soc. and Anr.

ByVivek Kumar Verma

Manohar Singh and Sons Vs. Raksha Karamchari Coop. Gr. H. Soc. and Anr. MANU/DE/3478/2009 FACTS Respondent-cooperative society (“R“) floated a tender for construction of flats, and the work was awarded to petitioner-contractor (“P“) through an agreement . The Architect certified P’s final bill for an amount of Rs. 9,47,043 along with a sum of Rs….

|

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sujir Ganesh Nayak and Co. and Another

ByVivek Kumar Verma

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sujir Ganesh Nayak and Co. and Another AIR 1997 SC 2049 Key Words: limitation, absolute restriction FACTS In this case, the plaintiff sought to struck down the covenant in the Insurance policy agreement stating “In no case whatsoever shall the company be liable for any loss or damage after the…

|

Subhas Chandra Das Mushib Vs. Ganga Prosad Das Mushib and Ors

ByVivek Kumar Verma

CITATION: AIR 1967 SC 878 Key Words: undue influence, dominant position, unfair advantage FACTS Plaintiff claimed that the will deed of his father conveying the entire property to defendant, plaintiff’s nephew, was brought about by exercising undue influence over the donor. To the contrary, the deed details that the gift of the property was made…