Read 3 minutes

Building a strong foundation in contract law requires understanding landmark judgments that have influenced the interpretation of key provisions under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Here are five more essential contract law judgments every judiciary aspirant should familiarize themselves with:

1. Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt (1913)

Facts:
Gauri Dutt’s nephew went missing, and he sent his servant Lalman Shukla to search for him. Subsequently, Gauri Dutt announced a reward for anyone who found the boy. Lalman Shukla, unaware of the reward, found the boy and later claimed the reward.

Ratio Decidendi:
The Allahabad High Court held that Lalman Shukla could not claim the reward as he was unaware of the offer at the time he performed the act. This case establishes the principle that acceptance of an offer must be made with the knowledge of the offer.

Relevant Section:

Section 2(b): Definition of acceptance.

2. Khadar Khan v. Khaja Khan (1898)

Facts:
The plaintiff, Khadar Khan, sued for the recovery of money he had paid under a contract for the purchase of certain goods. However, the defendant, Khaja Khan, refused to fulfill the contract and denied receiving any payment.

Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that oral agreements are binding if proven. This case emphasizes that contracts need not be in writing to be enforceable as long as there is clear evidence of offer, acceptance, and consideration, except in cases where the law requires a written agreement.

Relevant Section:

Section 10: What agreements are contracts.

3. CIT v. Kanhaiyalal and Co. (1956)

Facts:
In this case, the plaintiff sought to enforce a contract despite a misrepresentation made by the other party. The contract involved was a business transaction, and the plaintiff argued that the misrepresentation was crucial to the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court of India ruled that a contract induced by fraudulent misrepresentation can be voidable at the option of the party misled. This case clarifies the difference between void and voidable contracts and reinforces that a contract based on fraudulent inducement can be avoided by the aggrieved party.

Relevant Sections:

Section 19: Voidability of agreements without free consent.
Section 17: Fraud.

4. Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (1954)

Facts:
The defendants, Mugneeram Bangur & Co., had agreed to sell land to Satyabrata Ghose. However, due to unforeseen circumstances during World War II, the land was requisitioned by the government. The defendants refused to complete the sale, claiming that the contract had become impossible to perform.

Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of frustration applies when an unforeseen event destroys the very foundation of the contract. However, the requisitioning of land by the government was not considered sufficient to frustrate the contract in this case. This case defines the scope of the doctrine of frustration under Indian contract law.

Relevant Section:

Section 56: Agreement to do an impossible act (Doctrine of frustration).

5. Chinnaya v. Ramayya (1882)

Facts:
An old woman gifted her property to her daughter, Ramayya, with the condition that Ramayya would pay an annuity to Chinnaya, the donor’s brother. When Ramayya failed to make the payment, Chinnaya sued for enforcement of the promise.

Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that although Chinnaya was not a direct party to the contract, she could enforce the promise made in her favor. This case highlights the concept of consideration under Indian law and that it can move from a third party, a deviation from the strict English doctrine of privity of consideration.

Relevant Section:

Section 2(d): Definition of consideration.

Conclusion

These additional five judgments cover important aspects such as knowledge of an offer, oral agreements, fraudulent misrepresentation, the doctrine of frustration, and third-party consideration. They are pivotal in shaping contract law jurisprudence in India. For judiciary aspirants, these cases provide critical insights into how courts approach complex contractual disputes under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.