BUSINESS LAW

Presented by:
Salman Khan
Shoaib Afridi
Saim Kashif

INSTRUCTOR:
SHAN ALI (LL.M GOLD MEDALLIST)
CASE NO 1: M.K. ROPAI VS JOHN
Case Facts:
 The case involves a dispute regarding a trust, with the appellants and
the respondents as the parties involved
 The trust in question was created by a Christian named
Kochu Vareed through a deed of trust in December 1958, with
a supplementary deed of trust executed in October
 The plaintiffs filed a suit in 1981, presenting several prayers, including
a declaration of trespass against defendants 4 to 9, invalidation of acts done
by defendants 1 to 9 since the resignation of the previous trustees, a full inquiry
into administration and accounts, recovery of properties and funds misused,
appointment of the plaintiffs as trustees, declaration of defendants 10 and 11 as
lawful trustees, and a permanent restraint on defendants 4 to 9 from interfering
with the trust
ISSUES OF THE CASE:

 Whether the lawsuit can be maintained given

a violation of Section 92 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
 Whether the court has the authority to hear
the case because it involves a trust.
COURT DECISIONS:
 The appeal was initially heard by a Division Bench, which
established four tests to determine the applicability of Section
92 of the Code
 The court found that the first three tests were satisfied for all
prayers except prayer , which was deemed a personal relief
rather than a representative one
 The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the issue of
entitlement, declaring them appointed as trustees but allowing
the second plaintiff to exercise his rights only upon attaining
majority
CONCLUSION:
 In the case "M.K. Ropai v. John," the Kerala High Court's decision
and order in Appeal Suit No. 591 of 1963 are being appealed
 The case addresses the use of Section 92 of the Code of Civil
Procedure in conjunction with a suit for the appointment of trustees
 The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in an effort to have some of the
defendants found to have violated the trust and to have their actions
declared invalid
 The trial court first dismissed the case on the grounds that it was
unmaintainable because it did not follow Section 92 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, which is the rule that applies to lawsuits involving
public trusts
CASE NO 2: KHAN GULL VS LAKHA SINGH

CASE FACTS:
 In the case of Khan Gul vs. Lakha Singh, the defendant, who
was a minor, misrepresented himself as an adult and entered
into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale of his property
 The plaintiff paid a certain amount of money and was willing to
pay the remaining balance
 However, the defendant refused to hand over the possession
of the property to the plaintiff, leading to the present case
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
 Can a minor who misrepresents their age be
estopped from claiming minority defense?

 Can a minor who misrepresents their age refuse to

perform their contractual obligation while retaining
the benefits?
COURT DECISIONS:
 After careful examination, the court considered the doctrine of
estoppel as a general principle, while recognizing that the protection
of minors under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act is a
special principle enacted by legislation
 The court concluded that the doctrine of estoppel cannot apply to
minors as it would lead to absurdity and injustice
 The court clarified that the case did not deal with the same subject
matter, but it established that minors cannot be held liable for breach
or damages in tort law when they misrepresent themselves as adults
CONCLUSION:
 The judgment changed the dynamics of compensation by
minors
 It influenced subsequent judgments involving
minors misrepresenting their age
 The judgment was held in favor of the plaintiff, ensuring the
minor did not retain both the benefits and the property
 Amendments were made to the Specific Relief Act, 1877, and
recommendations were made to the Indian Contract Act,
1872, regarding compensation by minors
 The controversy surrounding restitution by minor defendants
was set aside by the new Specific Relief Act
CASE NO 3:SIMS&CO VS MIDLAND RLY .CO.

CASE FACTS:

 Sims & Co., a business, had contracted with the Midland

Railway Company in this instance to convey a certain amount
of butter
 However, the delivery of the items was significantly delayed
as a result of a strike that took place during the transit time
 The Midland Railway Company chose to sell the items instead
of delivering them to the consignee, Sims & Co., in order to
limit prospective losses
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
 The validity and enforceability of the railway company's sale of
perishable commodities as the fundamental issue in this case
 Sims & Co. challenged the transaction, contending that the railway
company shouldn't have sold the goods without consulting them first
or giving them the chance to find alternate transportation
 The Midland Railway Company, on the other hand, defended its
conduct by claiming that the strike-related delay rendered it
impracticable to continue delivering the perishable goods, forcing the
sale to stop further deterioration and reduce prospective losses
COURT DECISIONS:
 According to the court's ruling, Sims & Co., the owner of the
committed butter, was contractually bound by the railway company's
sale of the products
 The court found that the railway company had the right to sell the
goods after taking into account the risks of deterioration and the
practical difficulties of continuing with the delivery
 The court's ruling was based on the idea that when unexpected
events prohibit the timely delivery of perishable products,
transporters have a duty to take reasonable steps to limit damages
CONCLUSION:
 An important precedent for English law concerning the duties and
rights of transporters and owners of perishable products in
circumstances including unanticipated delays was set in Sims & Co v.
Midland Railway Company
 The case established that when confronted with unusual conditions
that increase the likelihood of additional deterioration, transporters
are permitted to sell perishable products
 The court aimed to offer a workable solution that considers the
difficulties experienced by all parties engaged in the shipping process
by permitting carriers to sell perishable items in such situations
CASE NO 4:FROST VS AYLES BURY DAIRY CO.LTD.

CASE FACTS:

 Mr. Frost bought a bottle of milk from the Aylesbury Dairy

Company in Frost v. Aylesbury Dairy Co
 He developed food sickness after ingesting the milk since it
contained dangerous microorganisms
 Mr. Frost filed a lawsuit against the dairy firm, claiming that
because the milk was unfit for human consumption, the
business had violated an implicit legal obligation
CASE ISSUES:

 The main question in this case was whether milk, as a "good

in its natural state," satisfied Section 14 of the Sale of Goods
Act of 1979's criterion of suitability for purpose.

 The primary issue was whether the Aylesbury Dairy Company

had violated its implicit statutory responsibility by providing
unsuitable milk
COURT DECISIONS:

 The court deliberated for some time before making a ruling

after carefully considering the facts and supporting evidence
 The implicit phrase that items delivered in the course of a
business must be of adequate quality and suitable for their
intended use is established by Section
 The court found that the milk in this case was unsuitable for
human consumption because it contained dangerous
microorganisms
CONCLUSION:

 A significant legal precedent addressing the applicability of

Section 14 of the Sale of products Act 1979 to products in
their natural state was set in Frost v. Aylesbury Dairy Co
 The ruling confirmed that commodities must meet
the standard for fitness for purpose even when they are
in their natural condition
 The court emphasized that even when dealing with products
in their natural condition, like raw milk, enterprises must still
deliver commodities that are adequate in quality and suited for
their intended use