Lex Summarium

Bench: N.S. Hegde, B.N. Kirpal Facts of the case: 1.  ICI  India Ltd. executed an agreement of sale wherein it agreed to transfer on an “as is where is” basis and “as a going concern” its fertilizer business of manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of urea fertilizer in favour of Chand Chhap Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd. (“CCFCL”), also a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which company has since been renamed as M/s Duncans Industries Limited, Fertilizer Division, Kanpur Nagar (the appellant herein) for a total sale consideration of Rs 70 crores which was termed as “slump price” in the agreement. 2.  Pursuant to the said agreement, a deed of conveyance was executed by the said ICI in favour of CCFCL, on the presentation of the said Conveyance Deed for registration.  3. The Sub- Registrar made a reference to the Collector under  Section 47-A(2)  of the Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter refe...

Equivalent citations: AIR 1974 AP 226 Bench: Kondaiah, Lakshmaiah Facts of the case   1.  The plaintiff's husband, late Profulla Kumar Raj and the defendant were friends. Plaintiff alleged that his husband had obtained a possessory mortgage  on 1-9-1957 with a view to run a touring cinema in that place. 2. Plaintiff’s husband built a temporary cinema structure and erected a temporary pandal in a portion of the site where he bought a cinema projector worth Rs. 16327 and the oil engine and accessories worth Rs 3506.   3.  The aforesaid cinema projector and the oil engine and their accessories have been imbedded and installed in the earth by constructing foundations for the purpose of running the cinema concern known as 'Kumar Touring Talkies'.   4.  Finding no time to manage the cinema concern the entrusted the management of the trust and confidence in him. The defendant taking advantage of his position, as being the person in ...

Rationale:  An advertisement can constitute a unilateral contract, which can be accepted by fulfilling the conditions of the contract; no formal acceptance required. The determination of a serious offer will be determined from the words and actions. The terms of the contract (if vague) will be interpreted purposively from the contract. The offeror can determine how acceptance of offer will be made. Facts of the case: On Nov. 13, 1891, Defendants gave an advertisement regarding their product i.e. Carbolic Smoke Ball of which they claimed that person consuming this as mentioned in advertisement would never come in contact with influenza pandemic. Further, Defendants announced a reward of 100 pound for those who will come in contact with influenza after consuming carbolic smoke ball. Advertisement is as: “£ 100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza, colds, or any diseases caused by taking cold, after having use...

  There are three types of homicides which are punishable in IPC 1.        Culpable homicide not amounting to murder 2.        Culpable homicide amounting to murder 3.        Homicide by negligence Homicide by negligence is covered in section is covered in Section 304A of IPC and is attracted in the cases where neither nor the intention to cause of death is present Section 304A “Causing death by negligence.--Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” Elements of Section 304A 1.        Whoever 2.        causes the death of any person 3.        by doing any rash or negligent act 4.   ...

Equivalent citations: (1935) 37 BOMLR 692, 159 Ind Cas 424 Bench: J Beaumont, Kt., Rangnekar Facts of the Case 1. There is a Hindu family consisting of father and his wife, son and his wife. However, father died in 1929 before the year of assessment, so the joint Hindu family then consisted of the son, his mother and his wife.   2. Question raised by Commissioner appears to me to admit the existence of a joint Hindu family. Legal Issues: Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the income received by right of survivorship by the sole surviving male member of a Hindu undivided family can be taxed in the hands of such male member as his own individual income, or it should be taxed; as the income of a Hindu undivided family, for the purposes of assessment to super-tax, under section 55 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922? Observations of Court and Judgement Observations By Beamount, C.J A Hindu undivided family is a unit for taxation under Sections 3 and 55, and under Section 14(1) i...

AIR 1958 SC532: (1959) SCR 265 Vivian Bose, J. Facts of the case: 1. Husband of  the  petitioner granted her the right to take and appropriate all kinds of wood from certain forests in his Zamindary by  an unregistered document for a period of 12 years. 2. Meanwhile, Madhya Pradesh  Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 was passsed and all proprietary rights in land vested in the State under s. 3 Of that  Act and the petitioner could no longer cut  any wood. 3. She applied to the Deputy Commissioner and obtained from him an order under S.6(2) of the Act permitting her to work the forest and started cutting the trees. 4. The Divisional Forest Officer took action against her and passed an order directing that her name might be cancelled and the cut materials forfeited.   5. She moved the State Government against this order but to no effect.  6. Thereafter she applied to Supreme Cour...

Rationale:  This case clarifies the legal position about the telephonic conversation illegally collected or obtained where Supreme Court clarified that contemporaneous tape record of relevant conversation of relevant fact is admissible as res gestae under Section 7 IEA, even if Section 25 of Indian Telegraph Act is contravened Facts of the case   1. Appellant in this case was the coroner of Bombay (coroner is the term used for official who holds inquests into violent, sudden and suspicious deaths) whereas complainants were Doctor Motwani (under whose treatment patient was after operation) and Dr. Adatia (who performed the operation).   2. Dr. Aditia was a gynaecologist who performed an operation on the patient who later died. Appellant allowed the disposal of the body without ordering post mortem. However, the request for inquest was raised by police station on ground of death after operation.   3. Appellant coroner asked Dr. Motwani to ask Dr. Adatia to pay a sum of...