The Doctrine of Frustration concerns the legal relationship that because of occurrence of some events beyond reasonable contemplation it becomes impossible to perform and therefore the parties are discharged of the performance of the contract. Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 enshrines thiRead more
The Doctrine of Frustration concerns the legal relationship that because of occurrence of some events beyond reasonable contemplation it becomes impossible to perform and therefore the parties are discharged of the performance of the contract. Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 enshrines this principle to the effect of saying that ‘every contract to do an impossible act is void’. The contract becomes frustrated when there is an event that has the affect of making the purpose of the contract impossible, unlawful or totally unexpected by both the parties to the contract.
The most famous of these are the Indian case Of Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (1954). In this case, the role of Supreme court referred to the decision making under the rule of frustration that Say the contract becomes frustrated where there is a condition that went to the root of the contract and made its performance impossible. In the case, it is shown that the building land contract was interrupted due to the governmental orders during the Second World War. That is why the Courts ruled that due to the war related restriction the parties were unable to perform their obligations under the contract and thus, the contract was frustrated.
Disaffection cannot be recorded where the issue of the challenge in performance is temporal or where the event was anticipated. It is also not allowed where the contract has provided for how particular incidences should be handled in as much as they are contingencies.
See less
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 deals with two important doctrine "Res Judicata" and "Res Sub Judice". The key differences between the two are: Meaning: Sec 11 CPC deals with the doctrine of Res Judicata and states that a matter that has already been decided by a competent court it can't be re-opened iRead more
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 deals with two important doctrine “Res Judicata” and “Res Sub Judice”. The key differences between the two are:
Meaning:
Sec 11 CPC deals with the doctrine of Res Judicata and states that a matter that has already been decided by a competent court it can’t be re-opened in subsequent litigation.
Sec 10 CPC deals with Res Sub judice and it prevents the courts from taking up any matter which is still pending before subsequent court.
Purpose
The main purpose of Res Judicata is to protect individuals from being harassed by multiplicity of suits.
The purpose behind doctrine of Res sub Judice is to ensure there is conflicting or multiple judgements and matter to be decided by only one competent court.
Stage Of Litigation
Res Judicata is applicable after the final Judgement has been pronounced whereas Res Sub judice is applicable when the suit is pending.
Effect
Res Judicate bars further litigation on the decided issue on the other hand Res Sub judice stays the trial of the pending suit.
See less