Search results
firstly, they were to wrestle in Poona on a certain day; secondly, the party failing to appear on that day was to forfeit Rs. 500 to the opposite party; thirdly, the winner was to receive Es. 1,125 of the gate-money. The defendant failed to appear in the ring and the plaintiff sued for Rs, 500.
Get free access to the complete judgment in Babasaheb Rahimsaheb v. Rajaram Raghunath Alpe on CaseMine.
Rajaram Raghunath, (1931) 33 BOMLR 260] the Court observed the application of Blue Pencil Doctrine in Indian contracts as well be holding that: In an agreement if different clauses are separable, the fact that one clause, is void does not necessarily cause the other clauses to fail. The Court applied this principle by holding that:
Today, Rajaram Raghunath Shirgaokar is remembered as a dedicated and committed freedom fighter who played a significant role in India's struggle for independence. His life and work continue to inspire generations of Indians who strive for a free, democratic, and just society.
Babasaheb Rahimsaheb v. Rajaram Raghunath[2] This was the first case in India to give validity to the Blue Pencil Doctrine stating that “In an agreement if different clauses are separable, the fact that one clause is void, does not necessarily cause the other clauses to fail.”
Apr 12, 2024 · The case of Babasaheb Rahimsaheb v. Rajaram Raghunath illustrated the application of the doctrine of blue pencil in Indian contracts, where the court held that separable clauses can be treated independently, allowing the valid parts of an agreement to stand even if one clause is void.
Rajaram Raghunath, the court scrutinised the use of blue pencil in Indian contracts to be holding that "in any covenant, if various conditions are detachable, in the way that one statement, is void, then it doesn't really make other different provisos insignificant. The court
