Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed (1886) 7 I.D. 64 (CAL.) - CLAT PDF Download

Introduction

• The case pertains to Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA).
• Section 25 establishes that agreements without consideration are void, and consideration must be provided at the desire of the promisor.

Facts

• A Town Hall was planned to be built in Howrah.
• The plaintiff was the trustee and Municipal Commissioner of the Howrah Town Hall Fund.
• After acquiring sufficient membership, funds were needed to construct the Town Hall.
• An agreement was made between the plaintiff (commissioner) and the defendant to construct the Town Hall.
• The initial cost estimate of Rs. 26,000 increased to Rs. 40,000 due to an expanded membership list, which also increased the membership fees.
• The defendant subscribed to pay Rs. 100 for the construction but later refused.
• The Municipal Commissioner sued the defendant for failing to fulfill the promise.

Issue Involved

• Was the defendant liable to pay the promised amount?

Observation

• The Calcutta High Courtobserved that:
• If individuals subscribe to a fund knowing its purpose, it constitutes a valid agreement.
• The agreement included all the essential elements of a contract enforceable by law.
• The subscription was considered a contract with good consideration enforceable by the proper party.
• The Court ruled that the plaintiff had the authority to sue on behalf of himself and all interested parties, holding the suit maintainable.

Conclusion

• The judgement concluded that once a promise is made, the promisor is obligated to fulfill the commitment and cannot withdraw from it.