Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Kedarnath Bhattacharjee Vs. Gorie Mahomed
(1886)ILR 14Cal64
Hon’ble Judges/Coram: William Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverely, J.
Decided On: November 26th, 1886
FACTS:
There were plans for building a town hall in Howrah. The persons interested in the building of the town hall, including the plaintiff who was then the Municipal Commissioner and one of the trustees of the Howrah Town Hall fund, set about looking for subscriptions. After sufficient subscriptions were collected the Commissioners entered into a contract with a contract for building the town hall. However, as the subscription list increased, the original cost increased too. The defendant had also subscribed for Rupees 100, and the question was whether the plaintiff can sue on behalf of himself and the other persons interested for the recovery of the subscription amount.
ISSUE:
Whether a subscription made amounts to valid consideration and is therefore recoverable or not?
JUDGMENT:
The court observed that many types of subscriptions cannot be recovered, as they are not backed by consideration. But, in the present case, persons were asked to subscribe, with knowledge of the purpose to which their subscription money was being applied to and also with knowledge that on the faith of their subscription an obligation would be incurred to pay the contractor for the work done by him.
The court held that the agreement on part of the plaintiff and the persons interested to construct the building, or in the alternative, have the building constructed by a third party is valid consideration for the subscription of money by the defendant. Thus, there was in place a perfectly valid contract and for good consideration. It was held that it contained all the elements of a contract which can be enforced in law by the persons to whom the liability is incurred. Thus, the amount could be recovered from the defendant by the plaintiff, or by the whole of persons who made themselves liable to the contractor if they were all joined.
HELD:
Thus there existed a valid contract between the plaintiff and the other persons who had incurred a liability towards the contractor on one side and the defendant on the other. The contract was for good consideration which could be enforced by the proper party and the plaintiff could sue on behalf of himself and all persons in the same interest.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
