User:Boselaphus/sandbox

Results
South Africa is divided into nine provinces. These provinces have taken their names from English, Afrikaans, and other South African languages.

No

 * Barkha Shukla Singh - 2007 to 17 July 2015
 * Swati Maliwal - July 2015 to 19 January 2024

Davy Ingram
Camille Servettaz (1870 – 1947) was a Swiss botanist. Servettaz studied Oleasters, and authored the book Monographie des Eléagnacées on the family.

=1997 Congress= In 1997, the Indian National Congress political party held a presidential election to elect its President. Incumbent party president Sitaram Kesri was elected in a landslide victory against Sharad Pawar and Rajesh Pilot.

MLCS
Lalman Shukla v Gauri Datt is a landmark Indian contract law case decided by the Allahabad High Court. The case decided that a contractual offer can only said to have been accepted, if the person accepting it had knowledge of the offer.

Facts
Gauri Datt's nephew ran away from his home in Cawnpore. He sent his servants to various places to search for the nephew. One of them, Lalman Shukla, was sent to Haridwar. After Shukla had left Cawnpore, Datt announced a reward of Rs 501 through pamphlets to anyone discovering the boy's whereabouts. Shukla traced the nephew in Rishikesh and brought him to Cawnpore. He did not know of the reward until he reached Cawnpore. Nonetheless, Shukla sued Datt for the reward.

Judgment
Justice Banerji dismissed Shukla's suit, deciding that no contract had been formed between Shukla and Datt. He held: "In order to constitute a contract, there must be an acceptance of an offer and there can be no acceptance unless there is knowledge of the offer."

This is a close reflection of section 4 of the Contract Act, which reads: "The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made."

As Shukla had already recovered the boy before he came to know of the reward, the announcement of the reward could not constitute offer to be accepted by recovering the boy.

DMP
In re Dinshaw Maneckjee Petit is a major Indian companies law case decided by the Bombay High Court. The case held that corporate veil could be pierced, if a company was formed merely to circumvent tax. The case concerned four shell companies formed by the son of enterpreneur and textile-mill owner Dinshaw Maneckji Petit.

MLCS
Chinnaya v Venkataramaya is a major Indian contract law case decided by the Madras High Court. The case decided that a contractual promise is enforceable if there is some consideration corresponds to it, irrespective of whom the consideration moves from. This view departed from the English contract law principle of privity of consideration.

Facts
A woman gifted certain land to her daughter. According to the registered gift deed, the daughter had to pay Rs 653 annually to the woman's brother. On the same day as of the deed, the daughter executed an agreement to pay the amount. However, it was not paid and woman's brothers sued. The munsif of Bezwada held in the brothers' favour, and his decision was confirmed by the district judge of Kistna. The daughter appealed to the Madras High Court.

Judgment
The question before the court was whether the brothers could have sued, given that they were not a party to the contract between the mother and her daughter. Justice Innes followed Dutton v Poole and held that the agreement could be enforced by the brothers. It was also observed that the woman was paying her brothers a yearly sum out of the estate, and while transferring the property to her daughter, she had expressly provided for continued payments. As there was some consideration flowing from the defendant-daughter, the plaintiffs were permitted to sue for non-payment.

Justice Kindersley, in a concurring judgment, pointed out that the Contract Act defined "consideration" as something moving from the "the promisee or any other person". Therefore, the arrangement at hand could be considered as one transaction, which could be enforced by the brothers.