Skip to main content

There must be a concluded contract in compensation claim for loss and damages

In Vedanta Limited V.  Emirates Trading Agency LLC, the Supreme Court held that Section 7 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that, in order to convert a proposal into a contract, acceptance must be absolute and unqualified. Existence of a concluded contract is a sine qua non in a claim for compensation for loss and damages under Section 73 of Act arising out of a breach of contract. If instead of acceptance of a proposal, a counter proposal is made, no concluded contract comes into existence. In U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. Indure (P) Ltd., Apex Court observed that, material alterations in contract make a world of difference to draw an inference of concluded contract.

Fulcrum of entire controversy is draft agreement dated 26th October, 2007 marked Exhibit 8-A, for supply of phosphoric acid by Appellant to Respondent. Proposal of Respondent, led to a counter proposal by Appellant. There was no acceptance of proposal by Appellant giving rise to a concluded contract. Quantity and duration of supply, therefore, remained in realm of uncertainty and was never agreed upon so as to give rise to a concluded contract. In absence of a concluded contract between parties having been established by Respondent, claim under Section 73 of Act was not maintainable. Supreme Court set aside Impugned orders and allowed the appeals.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more