Trace Your Case

Menu

Author: admin

Categories
Free Consent And Vitiating Factors

Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad (1924) 26 BOMLR 595

ISSUE:

Whether the Appellant can claim his right, under the Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act?

Whether the Respondent was in position to dominate the will of the other party?

RULE:

The burden of proving that the contract was not induced by undue influence is to lie upon the person who was in a position to dominate the will of the other.

If a fact is established, then the unconscionable nature of the bargain and the burden of proof on the issue of undue influence come into operation.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Free Consent And Vitiating Factors

Ranee Annapurani Nachiar v. Swaminatha Chettiar and ors. (1910) 20MLJ785

ISSUE:

Whether the mortgage by the defendant to the plaintiff of her right to future maintenance is ineffective?

Whether the contract was induced by undue influence?

RULE:

Whenever there is a situation of the parties in an agreement where one of the parties is in position to dominate the will of other, the ‘relation’ between the parties means not only the personal relations but the circumstances in which the contract was entered into.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Free Consent And Vitiating Factors

R v. Kylsant 1931

ISSUE:

Whether the plaintiff can take action against the defendant for the fraudulent information declared in the company’s prospectus?

Whether the defendant is liable for the fraud?

RULE:

Fraud may be postulated, not only upon misrepresentation, but upon the breach of an absolute duty to disclose all relevant facts.

Also, fiduciary relationships create such a duty of disclosure and where superior knowledge of one party is coupled with ignorance or trustfulness in another.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Void Agreements

Shell U.K. Ltd. v. Lostock Garage Ltd. [1976] EWCA Civ J0630-1

ISSUE:

Whether the injunction raised by plaintiff to the defendant garage company is reasonable or not, and can they restrain defendants from trade?

Whether the court may enable the defendant to terminate the solus agreement with the plaintiff, and can they proceed to seek supply from other party?

RULE:

If there is any kind of discrimination rendering the commercial operation, the court has to involve in the examination of the business and its commercial relations.
However, this is inevitable when dealing with the doctrine of the restraint of the trade.

Such extremes should not imply a term stopping certain types of discrimination could lead to absurdity. Further, when the degree of discrimination is as such to render the defendants’ commercial operations impracticable, it is prohibited.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Void Agreements

Superintendence Co. of India Ltd v. Krishan Murgai (1981) 2 SCC 246

ISSUE:

Whether a post-restrictive covenant in restraint of trade as contained in clause (10) of the service agreement between the parties is void under the Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act?

RULE:

The doctrine of restraint of trade never applies during the continuance of a contract of employment; it applies only when the contract comes to an end. While during the period of employment, the courts undoubtedly would not grant any specific performance of a contract of personal service.

Negative covenants operating during the period of the contract of employment when the employee is bound to serve his employer exclusively are generally not regarded as restraint of trade and therefore do not fall under Section 27 of the Contract Act.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Void Agreements

V.N. Deshpande v. Arvind Mills Co. Ltd. AIR 1946 BOMBAY 423

ISSUE:

Whether the covenants of this agreement are unreasonable or not, and whether whole agreement is unenforceable or not?

Whether the injunction claimed by the defendants should be granted or not?

RULE:

It is therefore futile to contend that the existence of a negative covenant in a service agreement makes the agreement void on the ground that it is in restraint of trade and against the principles found in Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act.

In truth a man who works for a particular wage and for a certain period agrees to work in fact and such an agreement does not restrain him from doing so.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Judgement And Sentencing

Ajay Pandit v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 8 SCC 43

ISSUE:

Whether the enhancement of accused’s sentence from life imprisonment to the death penalty by the Court, without adhering to the mandatory hearing requirement under Section 235(2) of the CrPC, is legally valid?

RULE:

Breach of the necessary requirement of S. 235(2) CrPC can vitiate the sentence.

Section 235(2) is not confined merely to hearing oral submissions, but also provides an opportunity for the prosecution and the accused to place before the court, facts and other relevant materials relating to the question of sentence and if they are contested, then to produce evidence to establish the same.

Asking the accused for his stance on the question of sentence is not enough to satisfy S. 235(2) CrPC, the onus is on the judge to make a genuine effort to extract all the information from the accused related to the question of sentence.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Appeal

BalaSaheb RangNath Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2012) Bom (Cri) 632

BALASAHEB RANGNATH KHADE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

BalaSaheb RangNath Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2012) Bom (Cri) 632

ISSUE:

  • Whether a victim can file an appeal against an order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC without obtaining the leave of the High Court, similar to the requirement for the State under Section 378?

RULE:

  • The merits of the matter would be denuded and diluted if leave is necessitated when the legislature refrained from putting any victim on par with the State or private complainant in Section 378 of CrPC.
  • The victims are put in head section to proviso of Section 372 excepting them from the rigours of procedure relating to appeals.

FACTS:

  • The appellant, Balasaheb Rangnath Khade, filed an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case.
  • The primary legal question was whether a victim could file such an appeal without seeking the leave of the court, as is required for the State under Section 378 of the CrPC.

HELD:

  • The High Court held that the victim is not required to apply for or obtain special leave of the Court to file any of the appeals under the proviso to Section 372.
  • The Court noted a thin difference between the victim and the complainant.
  • The High Court ruled that complainant in a private complaint would not be able to avoid the scrutiny of the Court for being granted the leave contemplated in Section 384(4) which provision stands.
  • The victim in a private complaint is in control of the criminal prosecution and prosecuted the private complaint as a complainant.
  • The private complainant could not be placed at par with the first informant.
  • The High Court noted that whereas one stands on his own feet and is in control of the proceeding, the other is left to the vagaries of the investigating agency and the prosecuting agency.
  • The victim has an absolute right to prefer an appeal whereas the complainant may present an appeal with the leave of the Court only.
Categories
Framing of Charge and Elements of Fair Trial

Balbir Singh v. State of Harayana, AIR 2000 SC 11

ISSUE:

Whether the Sessions Court was correct in conducting two separate trials for the same offence based on two contradictory versions of the incident?

Whether the conviction of the appellant could be sustained when the police investigation had exonerated him and implicated another accused?

RULE:

When two contradictory prosecutions arise from the same offence, they cannot be merged into a single trial unless they form part of the same transaction. The requirement of "same transaction" under criminal procedure necessitates a commonality of purpose, cause and effect, or continuity of action, which was absent in this case.

A conviction cannot be sustained merely because of a private complaint when the official investigation exonerates the accused. The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the official investigation was false or manipulated to shield the real offender. Without such certainty, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Appeal

Jagmohan Bhola v. Dilbagh Rai Bhola (2011) Criminal Appeal NO. 793 of 2010, decided on 24.02.2011

JAGMOHAN BHOLA V. DILBAGH RAI BHOLA

Jagmohan Bhola v. Dilbagh Rai Bhola (2011) Criminal Appeal NO. 793 of 2010, decided on 24.02.2011

ISSUE:

  • Whether the appellant qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, thereby granting him the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372?
  • Whether an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 require prior leave of the High Court?

RULE:

  • The Court held that the proviso to section 372 is a special provision distinct from the State’s right under section 378 and deals with three different situations not limited to appeals on acquittals.
  • All the appeals, whether against acquittals, conviction for lesser offence, or inadequate compensation, have been placed on the same footing.
  • Requiring prior leave in victim appeals under the proviso to Section 372 would be unwarranted, as the legislature did not stipulate such a condition.

FACTS:

  • The appellant, Jagmohan Bhola, brother of the deceased Rashmi, filed an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
  • The appellant challenged the acquittal of Rashmi’s husband, Dilbagh Rai Bhola, and his family members (Respondents) charged under Sections 498A/34 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1806.
  • The appellant filed the appeal by invoking the proviso to section 372 claiming to be a person covered by the definition of a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, 1973.

HELD:

  • The High Court held that the appellant, as the brother of the deceased Rashmi, whose parents are deceased and whose minor daughter resides with the acquitted husband, qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.
  • The High Court held that no limitation can be read into the provisos to section 372 with regard to the requirement of taking leave of the High Court before an appeal is presented to it by a victim.
  • The High Court noted that while section 378 is limited to the State’s right to appeal against acquittals, proviso to section 372 is a special provision including three different situations, all placed on the same footing.
  • Additionally, the Court held that while in the case of an appeal by a convict, admission is more or less a formality, that is not the same in the case of an appeal by a victim.
  • The victim must show prima facie that an error exists in the trial court’s judgment, necessitating a thorough review by the High Court.