9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 900 - SC - Indian LawsEnforceability of contract - Transportation through the Tiger Reserve - Lifting and transportation of the iron ore fines Violation u/s 38(v) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 as amended in 2006 Held that - On March 31, 2010, the PCCF (Wildlife) & Chief Wildlife Warden, Bangalore, specifically stated to the appellant that Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary was declared as a Tiger Reserve and was required to be maintained as inviolate for tiger population, therefore, transportation through the said Tiger Reserve u/s 38(v) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 as amended in 2006 was refused - The contract of lifting and transport the iron ore fines became unenforceable and further, the contract is also hit by Section 38(v) - Thus, the object of the contract is forbidden by law - Hence, the contract is unlawful and cannot be given effect to No need to interfere the High Court order - No merit in the appeal, and the same is dismissed Decided against appellants.
Issues:
1. Frustration of contract due to refusal of permission to transport iron ore fines through a wildlife sanctuary. 2. Applicability of Section 38(v) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 on the contract. 3. Validity of contract and enforcement in light of the legal provisions. Issue 1: Frustration of Contract The case involved an appeal against a High Court order regarding an e-auction contract for iron ore fines. The contract was frustrated due to the refusal of permission to transport the iron ore fines through a wildlife sanctuary. The High Court held that the contract stood frustrated and could not be performed by the respondent, leading to the direction for refund of the entire amount by the appellant. Issue 2: Applicability of Section 38(v) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 The respondent argued that the contract was in violation of Section 38(v) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, as amended in 2006. The refusal to allow transportation through the Tiger Reserve under this section was cited as a reason for the frustration of the contract. The High Court agreed with this argument and directed the appellant to refund the entire amount received. Issue 3: Validity of Contract and Enforcement The appellant contended that there was a breach of the original agreement by the respondent, justifying the forfeiture of earnest money and security deposit. However, the respondent's counsel argued that the contract was unenforceable due to being against public policy and forbidden by law. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the contract was unlawful and unenforceable, dismissing the appeal and affirming the direction for refund of the entire amount. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision in a case involving frustration of contract due to the refusal of permission to transport iron ore fines through a wildlife sanctuary. The court found the contract to be unenforceable and in violation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, leading to the direction for the appellant to refund the entire amount received from the respondent.
|
