LexLords NRI Legal Services Southall By NRI Legal Services LexLords

NRI legal services - http://nrizone.in; Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that the agreement dated 07. Similarly, the explanation to Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act provides that in estimating the loss or damage arising from breach of contract, the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the contract must be taken into account. What is thus hit by Section 28 is an agreement relinquishing the remedy only i.

The attaching of a condition like that to a deed of gift could not, in our opinion, convert it into a sublease. While finalizing the assessment for the assessment year 2001-2002, a show cause notice dated 19. In the present case, the Electricity Board merely pleads that EPL has failed to declare and supply the available capacity of electricity on proportionate basis to the Electricity Board and nothing more. where the time-limit specified in the agreement is shorter than the period of limitation provided by law.

In our opinion, the first contention of the AttorneyGeneral must fail. 1994, the CCT issued another Circular No. 2001 requiring the appellant to show cause why the partial exemption claimed under State Governments notification No. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment reads as follows:- The Law Commission of India has recommended in its 97th report that Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 may be amended so that the anomalous situation created by the existing Section may be rectified.

It is clear, therefore, that the suit of 1932 was not a suit for eviction instituted by a lessor against his lessee, nor could the present defendant be regarded as a sub-lessee under the defendants in the earlier suit. It may be unfortunate that by reason of a pure misdescription, the earlier suit was dismissed against the Jain Sabha, but that is altogether irrelevant for our present purpose. Both in form and in substance it is a deed of gift and not a sub-lease. Vada Levai Marakayar and Other(1), which relates to Muslims and it may well be that the position is, as stated therein, amongst Muslims.

We have gone carefully through the document executed by Bharamappa in, favour of the Jain Sabha. By the said circular the competent authority purported to state that the dealer can avail of the benefit of either of these two notifications in any financial year meaning thereby that if he opts for the benefit under notification dated 06. We have been referred to a statement at page 223 of P. It is submitted that in terms of Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act and Section 107 of the Act, the said document would require registration only if it leases the immoveable suit property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year or receiving yearly rent.

31(2) (iii)the Act is not saved by art. 31(5) from the operation of art. 2006 creates a monthly tenancy. The gift, it seems, Was made for a specific purpose, namely, for construction of a school building upon the site which was to be used for the education of the boys and girls of the Jain community, and it was for this reason that the deed provided that on the contingency of the school being removed from the site or its ceasing to exist, the land would revert to the donor. The learned Judges of the Madras High Court appear to have made the Full Bench reference above noticed on an argument before them that erection of tombs for deceased persons and endowment of properties for the upkeep thereof and for the performance of worship thereat were common amongst Hindus of certain communities and that it is believ- ed by them to redound to their spiritual benefit, and that the validity of such endowments have been recognised by the courts.

It is the duty of the court to take into account whether the party affected by breach of contract has performed its duty to mitigate the loss while estimating the loss or damage arising from the breach of contract. (ii)that in view of the fact that the impugned Act is a permanent enactment and lands may be acquired under it many years after it came into force, the fixing of the market value on December 31, 1946, as the coiling on compensation without reference to the value of the land at the time of acquisition, is arbitrary and cannot be regarded as due compliance in letter and spirit with the requirements of art.

It has been held by the courts that the said Section 28 shall invalidate only a clause in any agreement which restricts any party thereto from enforcing his rights absolutely or which limits the time within which he may enforce his rights. 1986 for the year 2000-2001, he would not be entitled NRI legal services (get the facts) to claim simultaneous benefit in respect of the same year under the notification dated 21. 1986 vis-a-vis notification dated 07.

241 defendant Jain Sabha was at all a sub-lessee under Bharamappa or his heirs. 1994 and subsequent notifications dated 12. The courts have, however, held that this Section shall not come into operation when the contractual term spells out an extinction of the right of a party to sue or spells out the discharge of a party from all liability in respect of the claim. 2001 purporting to clarify the applicability of partial exemption notification dated 06. But the case that they referred to is Muthu Kana Ana Ramanatham Chettiar v.

31(2) as it was not certified by the President as provided for by art. 2003 was issued purportedly based on Circular dated 16. After a lapse of seven years from the previous circular dated 15.