July 3, 2024
DU LLBLaw of ContractSemester 1

Kedarnath Bhattacharji V Gorie Mahomed ( 1886) 7 I.D 64 Cal Case Analysis

Facts

  • It appeared that it was thought advisable to erect a Town Hall at Howrah, provided sufficient subscriptions could be got together for the purpose.
  • To this end the Commissioners of the Howrah Municipality set to work to obtain the necessary funds by public subscription, creating themselves, by deed, trustees of the Howrah Town Hall Fund.
  • As soon as the subscriptions allowed, the Commissioners including the plaintiff, who was also Vice Chairman of the Municipality, entered into a contract with a contractor for the purpose of building the Town Hall, estimates and plans were submitted to, and approved by, the Commissioners, the original estimate amounting to Rs. 26,000.
  • This estimate, however, was increased to Rs. 40,000, and it was found that the subscriptions would cover this amount, and the original plans were therefore enlarged and altered.

The defendant was a subscriber to this fund of rupees one hundred, having signed his name in the subscription book for that amount. The defendant not having paid his subscription was sued in the Howrah Court of Small Causes by the plaintiff as Vice? Chairman and trustee and therefore as one of the persons who had made himself liable to the contractor for the costs of the building, to recover the amount entered in the subscription book.

Law Points

  • Section 2(d) of ICA 1872 – consideration
  • the High Court on the following points:
    • Whether the suit as laid by the plaintiff was legally maintainable?
    • Whether, upon the facts stated, the trustees were entitled to judgment?]
      • Without reference to his being a trustee or a Municipal Commissioner, we think that under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure he is entitled to bring an action on behalf of himself and others jointly interested with him
  • Section 25 of ICA 1872

Agreement without consideration, void, unless it is in writing and registered or is a promise to compensate for something done or is a promise to pay barred by limitation law

Judgement

  • Person were asked to subscribe knowing the purpose of money – an obligation was to incurred to pay the contractor – contract arises

Valid contract for good consideration

Related posts

Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar(1993) 4 SCC 727

vikash Kumar

H.L. Trehan v. Union of India(1989) 1 SCC 764: AIR 1989 SC 568

vikash Kumar

King V Phillips ( 1953) 1 QB 429

Dharamvir S Bainda

Leave a Comment