Wednesday, 10, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
BARE ACTS

Supreme Court (SC) Judgements on Section 23. What consideration and objects are lawful, and what not

Bare Act Title Category / State
Section 23. What consideration and objects are lawful, and what not Civil Laws
 

List of Judgements

PASL Wind Solutions Private Ltd. Vs. GE Power Conversion India Private Ltd.

Judgement Date : april/2021, Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 216 SC

Headnote :

A. Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, specifically Sections 2(1)(f) and 4, regarding arbitration and the selection of a seat, two companies incorporated in India have agreed that Zurich, Switzerland will serve as the juridical seat of arbitration. This designation has been clearly e...

PASL Wind Solutions Private Ltd. Vs. GE Power Conversion India Private Ltd.

Judgement Date : april/2021, Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 215 SC

Headnote :

A. Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, specifically Sections 2(1)(f) and 4, regarding arbitration and the selection of a seat, two companies incorporated in India have agreed in their contract that Zurich, Switzerland will serve as the juridical seat of arbitration. This designation...

FERRODOUS ESTATES (PVT) LTD. vs. P.GOPIRATHNAM (DEAD) AND ORS.

Judgement Date : october/2020, Citation : 2020 Latest Caselaw 550 SC

Headnote :

CRUCIALA mere delay, on its own, cannot be the only reason to deny specific performance.A. Under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - In a suit for specific performance, the agreement to sell includes a specific clause requiring the vendor to secure permission from the appropriate authority...

VINODCHANDRA SAKARLAL KAPADIA vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Judgement Date : june/2020, Citation : 2020 Latest Caselaw 394 SC

Headnote :

IMPORTANTAgricultural land governed by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act cannot be transferred through a will.According to Sections 43 and 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the validity of testamentary transfers of agricultural land is in question. Even though a...

M/S. CENTROTRADE MINERALS AND METALS INC. vs. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD.

Judgement Date : june/2020, Citation : 2020 Latest Caselaw 383 SC

Headnote :

Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872.[Paragraph]

Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority [November 25, 2014]

Judgement Date : november/2014, Citation : 2014 Latest Caselaw 729 SC

Mary Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. [OCTOBER 22, 2013]

Judgement Date : october/2013, Citation : 2013 Latest Caselaw 740 SC

Union of India Vs. Col. L.S.N. Murthy & ANR.

Judgement Date : november/2011, Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 862 SC

Bcpp Mazdoor Sangh & Anr Vs. N.T.P.C. & Ors [2007] Insc 1039 (11 October 2007)

Judgement Date : october/2007, Citation : 2007 Latest Caselaw 826 SC

Hardev Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh (Dead) By Lrs [2007] Insc 87 (2 February 2007)

Judgement Date : february/2007, Citation : 2007 Latest Caselaw 87 SC

Indian Airlines Ltd Vs. Prabha D. Kanan [2006] Insc 782 (10 November 2006)

Judgement Date : november/2006, Citation : 2006 Latest Caselaw 782 SC

State of Rajasthan & Ors Vs. Basant Nahata [2005] Insc 474 (7 September 2005)

Judgement Date : september/2005, Citation : 2005 Latest Caselaw 473 SC

Hindustan Times & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & ANR [2002] INSC457 (1 November 2002)

Judgement Date : november/2002, Citation : 2002 Latest Caselaw 458 SC

C.E.S.C. Ltd. Vs. Subhash Chandra Bose & Ors [1991] INSC 297 (15 November 1991)

Judgement Date : november/1991, Citation : 1991 Latest Caselaw 297 SC

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress [1990] INSC 268 (4 September 1990)

Judgement Date : september/1990, Citation : 1990 Latest Caselaw 268 SC

Headnote :

Respondents 2 to 4, who are regular employees of the appellant Delhi Transport Corporation, received termination notices under Regulation 9(b) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952. The notices were issued on the grounds that they had become in...

A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & ANR Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem [1989] INSC 85 (13 March 1989)

Judgement Date : march/1989, Citation : 1989 Latest Caselaw 85 SC

Headnote :

The first appellant is a manufacturer and supplier of metallic yarn operating under the name \"Raplon Metallic Yarn,\" with its registered office located in Udyognagar, Mohamadabad, Gujarat, which falls under the jurisdiction of the civil court at Kaira. The second appellant is affiliated with the f...

Central Inland Water Transportcorporation Ltd. & ANR Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & ANR [1986] INSC 64 (6 April 1986)

Judgement Date : april/1986, Citation : 1986 Latest Caselaw 64 SC

Headnote :

The Central Inland Water Transport Corporation, established on February 22, 1967, is a government-owned entity under the jurisdiction of the Government of India and the State Governments of West Bengal and Assam. It qualifies as a government company as defined by section 617 of the Companies Act, 19...

M.G.Brothers Lorry Service Vs. Prasad Textiles [1983] INSC 52 (28 April 1983)

Judgement Date : april/1983, Citation : 1983 Latest Caselaw 52 SC

Headnote :

On May 1, 1969, the respondent entrusted a shipment of goods to the appellant under a Way Bill for transport from Guntur to Vijayawada. When the appellant failed to deliver the goods in Vijayawada, the respondent issued a notice of claim on June 20, 1969, and subsequently filed lawsuits to recover d...

Firm of Pratapchand Nopaji Vs. Firm of Kotrike Venkatta Setty & Sons [1974] INSC 268 (12 December 1974)

Judgement Date : december/1974, Citation : 1974 Latest Caselaw 266 SC

Headnote :

The appellant firm initiated legal action to recover amounts owed to it for indemnification under Section 222 of the Contract Act, based on claims that it had made payments to third parties on behalf of the respondents, who allegedly instructed the appellant to engage in \'Badla\' transactions for t...

Murlidhar Agarwal & ANR Vs. State of U.P. & Ors [1974] INSC 128 (26 July 1974)

Judgement Date : july/1974, Citation : 1974 Latest Caselaw 126 SC

Headnote :

The Additional District Magistrate issued an eviction order against the tenant following a request from the landlord under Section 7A of the Act. Upon review, the Additional Commissioner upheld the eviction order. However, the State Government, exercising its revisional authority under Section 7F, a...

Gulam Abbas Vs. Haji Kayyum Ali & Ors [1972] INSC 225 (18 September 1972)

Judgement Date : september/1972, Citation : 1972 Latest Caselaw 225 SC

Headnote :

Muslim jurisprudence intricately weaves together theological and moral concepts with secular legal principles, presenting a comprehensive theory of actions categorized as good (stemming from \'haana\'), bad (exhibiting \'qubuh\'), or neutral. These actions are classified based on varying levels of a...

Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Vs. M/S. S. C. Kothari [1971] INSC 269 (5 October 1971)

Judgement Date : october/1971, Citation : 1971 Latest Caselaw 269 SC

Headnote :

Section 15(4) of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 was established to safeguard the public from the unethical practices of members of recognized associations, particularly in situations where their roles as agents conflict with their personal interests. The Parliament mandated that a writ...

Lachoo Mal Vs. Radhey Shyam [1971] INSC 48 (10 February 1971)

Judgement Date : february/1971, Citation : 1971 Latest Caselaw 48 SC

Headnote :

The appellant was a tenant in the respondents\' shop. In 1962, the respondents wished to undertake some construction, leading to an agreement where the appellant would vacate the shop but would be allowed to return at the same rent once the construction was finished. It was also stipulated that all...

Seth Gulabchand Vs. Seth Kudilal & Ors [1966] INSC 51 (22 February 1966)

Judgement Date : february/1966, Citation : 1966 Latest Caselaw 51 SC

Headnote :

G was one of several partners in a firm that served as Managing Agents and Selling Agents for a company that owned a textile mill in Indore. Significant disputes emerged among the partners, leading the Directors of the managed company to establish a committee in November 1940, which included the app...

Smt. Surasaibalini Debi Vs. Phanindra Mohan Majumdar [1964] INSC 240 (27 October 1964)

Judgement Date : october/1964, Citation : 1964 Latest Caselaw 240 SC

Headnote :

The plaintiff (respondent) was employed in Calcutta at the Court of Wards, where the service regulations prohibited him from starting or conducting any personal trade or business. Consequently, an arrangement was made with the defendant, who was to be presented as the owner of a boarding house, the...

Ouseph Poulo and Three Others Vs. Catholic Union Bank Ltd. & Ors [1964] INSC 126 (16 April 1964)

Judgement Date : april/1964, Citation : 1964 Latest Caselaw 126 SC

Headnote :

Two of the defendants involved in the lawsuits that led to the current appeals borrowed Rs. 80,024-4-9 from the respondent Bank for their business by pledging their goods. The Bank later found a shortage in the pledged goods and, through its Secretary, filed a police complaint alleging that the defe...

Moti Ram Deka Vs. General Manager, N.E.F. Railways [1963] INSC 239 (5 December 1963)

Judgement Date : december/1963, Citation : 1963 Latest Caselaw 267 SC

Headnote :

Moti Ram Deka served as a peon with the North East Frontier Railway, while Sudhir Kumar Das held a confirmed position as a clerk. The General Manager of the North East Frontier Railway dismissed them under Rule 148(3) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume 1.They contested their dismissals...

V. Narasimha Raju Vs. V. Gurumurthy Raju & Ors [1962] INSC 235 (22 August 1962)

Judgement Date : august/1962, Citation : 1962 Latest Caselaw 235 SC

Headnote :

In relation to a business that the appellant and the first respondent were operating in partnership with others until September 15, 1942, the first respondent requested that the accounts be settled and the profits distributed among the partners. Disputes emerged during the profit distribution, as th...

Gherulal Parakh Vs. Mahadeodas Maiya & Ors [1959] INSC 28 (26 March 1959)

Judgement Date : march/1959, Citation : 1959 Latest Caselaw 28 SC

Headnote :

The issue to be resolved in this appeal was whether a partnership agreement aimed at engaging in wagering transactions was illegal under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The appellant and respondent No. 1 formed a partnership to conduct forward contracts for buying and selling wheat with two o...