9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Civil Appeal No. 4026 of 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12463/2012] - - - Dated:- 26-3-2014 - Gyan Sudha Misra And Pinaki Chandra Ghose,JJ. JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated February 21, 2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.38280/2011. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es through Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests by letter dated March 31, 2010, declined to grant such permission for the removal of 1.00 lakh tons of iron ore fines by plying vehicles. In these circumstances, the High Court held that the contract itself stood frustrated and could not have been performed by the respondent even if it desired to do so, and further held that in case of frustrated contract, parties must be restored to their original position. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid reason, the High Court held that it is illegal and unconscionable for SAIL not to refund the entire sum of money received by it from the respondent. The High Court further held that the extension was granted at the instan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he light of the respondent s request, the contract was revalidated on July 27, 2009 on the same terms and conditions and, in fact, there was no waiver of any conditions stipulated in the sale order dated March 16 2007; therefore, on this question the High Court is not correct since, according to him, there was no question of any waiver. He further submitted that there was no frustration due to impossibility because the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests had granted clearance. 7. Per contra, Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, drew our attention to the letter dated March 31, 2010 whereby the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) Chief Wildlife Warden, Bangalore, has specif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
