Can the agreement between the parties said to be unconscionable and opposed to public policy?
Whether the injunction was reasonable?
If the restraints on one's freedom to practice and indulge in any trade is reasonable then the restraint is valid and good. The restraints must not be harsh, one sided, unconscionable or against public policy.
Whether the right of first refusal under Clause 31(b) of the permission agreement entered into between the appellant and the respondent is void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 has been in restraint of trade.
Putting a restriction on someone's freedom to enter into a contract is void. The restrictive covenant was negative in nature because it was forcing the respondent to do something.
Whether the plaintiff can recover the half of $50 dollars that was given by him to the defendant as security for enjoying the services provided by the latter?
The principle, "in pari delicto potior est conditio possidentis" that had been founded upon the principles of public policy had been applied. It stated that the courts will not assist the plaintiff who has handed over money in pursuance of an immoral or illegal agreement or has paid over the money, fully knowing its nature.
Whether the agreement between the parties was such that the it caused the respondent a restraint to trade?
Section 28(b) of the ICA states that every agreement which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to that extent.
Whether the plaintiff can realize his money back even though the object of the agreement defeated the provisions of the law?
Section 23 of the ICA states that Consideration or object of an agreement is lawful unless it is forbidden by law, or is fraudulent or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another. Also if the Court regards the consideration or object immoral or opposed to public policy, it will not be enforced and makes the agreement void.
As the agreement of which the object was unlawful being opposed to a statutory provision, the plaintiff cannot claim relief under Section 65 of the Contract Act.
Whether Patel can recover the amount from the defendant even though it was given to do an illegal act?
A claimant will be prevented from enforcing his claim to property because, it was paid to perform an illegal act, unless, not allowing his claim would be contrary to relevant public policy, or it would be disproportionate to not allow him to recover.
LAXMI DYECHEM V. STATE OF GUJARAT Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 CompLJ 137 (SC) ISSUE: Whether or not the dishonour of a cheque would constitute an offence only in one of the two contingencies envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? RULE: Section 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments...
Whether contracts entered into and executed by the assessee for manufacture, supply, installation, and commission of elevators and lifts were contracts for work or sale-contracts?
In a "contract of sale", the main object is the transfer of property and delivery of possession of the property, whereas the main object in a "contract for work" is not the transfer of the property but it is one for work and labour.
Another test often to be applied to is: when and how the property of the dealer in such a transaction passes to the customer: is it by transfer at the time of delivery of the finished article as a chattel or by accession during the procession of work on fusion to the movable property of the customer? If it is the former, it is a "sale"; if it is the latter, it is a "works- contract".
Therefore, in judging whether the contract is for a "sale" or for "work and labour", the essence of the contract or the reality of the transaction as a whole has to be taken into consideration
Whether supply of bus body after constructing and fitting the same to chassis provided by the Government is in pursuance of a sale or a works contract?
A contract of sale is a contract whose main object is the transfer of the property in, and the delivery of the possession of, a chattel as a chattel to the buyer. Where the main object of the work undertaken by the payee for the price is not the transfer of a chattel qua chattel, the contract is one for work and labour.
Whether sales tax can be levied on the respondent for the goods not accepted by the party?
Section 23(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1930, Where there is a contract for the sale of unascertained or future goods by description and goods of that description and in a deliverable state are unconditionally appropriated to the contract, either by the seller with the assent of the buyer or by the buyer with the assent of the seller, the property in the goods thereupon passes to the buyer. Such assent may be expressed or implied, and may be given either before or after the appropriation is made.