Was the rule in the company policy unconscionable and thus held to be void under ICA?
The corporation was a government undertaking thus has to be a welfare state and should ensure the security of service.
Was the contract void for unconscionability?
There existed a fiduciary relationship between the parties, and the bank being in the superior position took advantage of the other party.
Can the trade tactics used by the defendant to make the plaintiff sign 14 contracts be considered as a fraud?
The statement of a party having superior knowledge can be regarded as a fact when both parties are not on equal footing. Such misrepresentation of fact is actionable.
Whether the plaintiff's husband deliberately suppressed the fact of his three lapsed policies which he should have disclosed and thereby attained the new policy by fraudulent misrepresentation?
Whether the concealment of this fact had any bearing on the risk undertaken by the defendant corporation by insuring his life which it would not have done had they known about this?
A contract of Insurance must be done under utmost good faith on the part of the person taking insurance for his life and is under an obligation to disclose all material facts which may have a bearing on the risk undertaken by the insurer.
Whether the estimate made and presented by the defendants upon which the plaintiff relied and took the lease to be considered as a collateral warranty to the contract of the lease?
Where a party makes a statement based on the experience and expertise that it has as its disposal and intends that the other party should act on it and he does act on it, it can be interpreted as a warranty.
Whether the Burden of Proof of Cruelty lies on the petitioner or not?
Whether on facts of the case the respondent-wife committed cruelty on the husband justifying a decree for judicial separation.
Whether condonation of cruelty as a defense under Section 23(1)(b) must be pleaded to be considered?
Section 12(1)(c) , Section 10(1) and Section 13(1)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Whether the respondent treated the plaintiff cruelly on the basis that she registered various criminal and civil cases, hurled abuses, behaved in an objectionable manner, and made multiple false accusations against him?
Whether the respondent’s behavior substantiates a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i)(a)?
To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be "grave and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than "ordinary wear and tear of married life". The conduct taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law.
Whether the plaintiff's claim for judicial separation under the pretext of desertion by the respondent can be allowed?
Desertion means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other's consent and without reasonable cause. It is a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage.
Permanence is one of the essential elements. If a spouse abandons the other spouse in a state of temporary passion, for example, anger or disgust, without intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it will not amount to desertion.
For the offence of desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there, namely, (1) the factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end.
Whether the defendant has treated the petitioner with cruelty and the effect of such cruelty?
Whether such cruelty and desertion can amount to valid ground for dissolution of marriage?
Whether the defendant is entitled to any relief? If so, its effect?
Section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act deals with cruelty under which, Cruelty consists of acts which are dangerous to life, limb or health. Cruelty for the purpose of the Act means where one spouse has so treated the other and manifested such feelings towards her or him as to have inflicted bodily injury, or to have caused reasonable apprehension of bodily injury, suffering or to have injured health. Cruelty may be physical or mental.
"Desertion", for the purpose of seeking divorce under the Act, means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other's consent and without reasonable cause.
Whether non-compliance with restitution of conjugal rights constitutes taking advantage of one's own wrong under section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act?
In order to be a 'wrong' within the meaning of Section 23(1)(a) the conduct alleged has to be something more than a mere disinclination to agree to an offer of reunion, it must be misconduct serious enough to justify denial of the relief to which the husband or the wife is otherwise entitled.