PT PRITHVI NATH MALLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the validity of the following clause 12 of the written contract entered into between the petitioner and the Union of India falls for determination:

(2.) THE main argument of the petitioners learned counsel is that clause 12 of the contract is void in view of section 28 of the Contract Act. The material part of section 28 is as follows:

(3.) IN Baroda Spinning and Weaving Co., Ltd. v. Satyanarayan Marine and Fire Insurance Co -Ltd., ILR 38 Bom 344: AIR 1914 Bom 225(2), one of the conditions in a policy of fire insurance sued on by the plaintiff was that if the claim be made and rejected, and an action or suit be not commenced within three months after such rejection, all benefit under the policy shall be forfeited. The suit was brought after the expiry of three months subsequent to the rejection of the claim. It was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the condition in the insurance policy offended against section 28 of the Contract Act and was therefore, void.