M/S. BHANDARI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY versus NARAYAN GOPAL UPADHYE

M/S. BHANDARI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY versus NARAYAN GOPAL UPADHYE

The case set up by the respondent in evidence was at variance with the pleadings and not established; there was no independent evidence of the cash payment and the terms of the agreement governed the relationship of the parties. Section 91 of the Evidence Act precluded evidence in contradiction to the written contract, and no proviso to Section 92 operated. State and National Commissions did not give sustainable reasons for differing from the District Forum. The District Forum's order is restored.

Parties
Appellant: Bhandari Construction Company; Respondent: Narayan Gopal Upadhye
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Final Order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Sale Purchase Agreement, Payment of Consideration, Revision in Cost, Return of Amount, Admissibility of Evidence, Proof of Payment
Contract Law Consumer Protection Law Evidence Law Sale Purchase Agreement Payment of Consideration Revision in Cost Return of Amount Admissibility of Evidence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhandari Construction Company

Appellant

Narayan Gopal Upadhye

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Final Order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence can be led to contradict terms of a written agreement under Section 91 of the Evidence Act
  2. 2 Whether the purchaser proved payment of the balance consideration in cash under the sale agreement
  3. 3 Whether the orders of the State Commission and National Commission were sustainable

Ratio Decidendi

The case set up by the respondent in evidence was at variance with the pleadings and not established; there was no independent evidence of the cash payment and the terms of the agreement governed the relationship of the parties. Section 91 of the Evidence Act precluded evidence in contradiction to the written contract, and no proviso to Section 92 operated. State and National Commissions did not give sustainable reasons for differing from the District Forum. The District Forum's order is restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decision of the National Commission and State Commission set aside.
  • Order of the District Forum restored.