Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Delhi Development Authority VS Kenneth Builders & Developers Ltd. ...
Delhi Development Authority VS Kenneth Builders & Developers Ltd. - 2016 6 Supreme 38 : The contract was frustrated under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 because the performance became impracticable and useless due to an intervening supervening circumstance not contemplated by the parties: the project land fell within the Ridge, and no construction activity was permissible without consent from the Ridge Management Board and the Supreme Court. Although Kenneth Builders had fulfilled its reciprocal promise by depositing the full bid amount and obtaining a no objection certificate, the DDA failed to provide the required ridge demarcation report to the DPCC, which was necessary for obtaining ''''consent to establish''''. This failure by the DDA, combined with the government''''s prohibition on construction in the Ridge area, rendered it impossible for Kenneth Builders to commence construction, despite its efforts. The court held that this impossibility, arising from a non-contemplated supervening event, frustrated the contract under Section 56, excusing further performance.Checking relevance for M. D. , Army Welfare Housing Organisation VS Sumangal Services Private LTD. ...
M. D. , Army Welfare Housing Organisation VS Sumangal Services Private LTD. - 2003 8 Supreme 520 : The legal documents discuss the principle that a contract may become void if performance becomes impossible due to the failure of one party to fulfill their reciprocal obligation, which in turn makes it impossible for the other party to perform their part. This is directly addressed in Paragraph 108, which references Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act: ''''A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful.'''' The scenario described in the query—where one party''''s failure to perform makes it impossible for the other party to perform—falls squarely within this legal principle, which is explicitly recognized and applied in the judgment.Checking relevance for Saradamani Kandappan VS S. Rajalakshmi...
Saradamani Kandappan VS S. Rajalakshmi - 2011 5 Supreme 1 : Section 53 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that when a contract contains reciprocal promises, and one party prevents the other from performing their promise, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party so prevented, and such party is entitled to compensation for any loss sustained due to non-performance. This directly addresses the scenario where failure by one party to fulfill their reciprocal promise makes it impossible for the other party to perform their part of the contract.Checking relevance for Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited VS Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited...
Checking relevance for State Of Kerala VS M. A. Mathai...
Checking relevance for General Manager Northern Railways VS Sarvesh Chopra...
General Manager Northern Railways VS Sarvesh Chopra - 2002 2 Supreme 170 : Under Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, if one party fails to fulfill their reciprocal promise, making it impossible for the other party to perform their part of the contract, the innocent party may avoid the contract. This is because the failure constitutes a fundamental breach, rendering the contract voidable at the option of the innocent party. Additionally, if time is of the essence, such failure entitles the innocent party to terminate the contract and claim damages for loss of the whole transaction, as the breach goes to the root of the contract.Checking relevance for NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA VS ALIMENTA S. A. ...
Checking relevance for Zakir Hussain, Director Zum Zum Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. M/s Zum Zum Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. VS Sunshine Agrisystem Pvt. Ltd. ...
Zakir Hussain, Director Zum Zum Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. M/s Zum Zum Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. VS Sunshine Agrisystem Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5440 : The court held that the agreement between the parties was not based on reciprocal promises under Section 2(f) of the Indian Contract Act, as the obligations were independent. Specifically, the petitioner''''s obligation to provide storage space was independent and absolute, and the respondent''''s obligation to pay storage charges could not be denied on the ground that the petitioner failed to perform its part. The court emphasized that in independent contracts, each party performs their promise without requiring prior performance by the other, and a failure by one party does not excuse the other from performing their obligation. This directly addresses the user''''s query by clarifying that a failure by one party to fulfill their reciprocal promise does not automatically make it impossible for the other party to fulfill their part, especially when the obligations are not mutually dependent.
