Bombay HC: Whether third party has locus standi to plead on behalf of the real owner that it is he (real owner), who was to be benefited by the Benami transaction?

 It is, therefore, necessary to understand whether the evidence is sufficient to prove that the appellant was holding property Benami. The appellant's husband is not party to the suit and, therefore, he has not claimed himself to be the real owner of the property. To my mind and in terms of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions Act, the question, whether the property held Benami was for the benefit of real owner, can only be answered when the real owner either files a suit or raises a defence on this count. It is so because the intention behind the Benami transaction is known to the person in whose name the property has been purchased or the person who has purchased the property in the name of other. A third party has no locus to plead on behalf of the real owner that it is he (real owner), who was to be benefited by the Benami transaction, unless third party otherwise proves. {Para 12}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 616/2007

Decided On: 26.04.2024

Badrunisa Vs. Sabdar Khan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Anil L. Pansare, J.

Citation: 2024:BHC-NAG:4870, MANU/MH/2715/2024.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether agreement executed by husband of original owner will be concluded contract and will bind his wife?

 The respondents have placed on record a document Exh.-78, allegedly signed by the plaintiff's husband stating therein that the suit property is agreed to be sold to the respondent No. 1. As such, the husband has denied execution of document and even if the document is presumed to be signed by the appellant's husband, it does not satisfy the ingredients of the concluded contract, at least, not against the appellant and, therefore, the question of granting protection under Section 53-A of the Act does not arise at all. {Para 17}

18. Both the Courts below have thus committed serious error of law in holding that the transaction under question was Benami and secondly that there was valid contract between the appellant and the respondents.

19. Put all together, it cannot be said that agreement dated 07.07.1995 is binding upon the appellant-plaintiff inasmuch as the document is the unilateral document, signed by the appellant's husband. The respondents failed to establish a concluded contract with the plaintiff. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 616/2007

Decided On: 26.04.2024

Badrunisa Vs. Sabdar Khan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Anil L. Pansare, J.

Citation: 2024:BHC-NAG:4870, MANU/MH/2715/2024

Print Page

What is concept of reimbursement of unjust enrichment regarding Government Contract?

 Taking into account the legal position as enunciated in these judgments, the impugned award holds that the absence of a contract would not deprive the respondent/contractor from a reasonable remuneration for the work performed. The view taken in the impugned award is plausible, and based on an application of law laid down in the judgements referred to therein. Reference is also apposite to the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in M.C.D. v. Ravi Kumar, MANU/DE/4058/2017, where this Court had occasioned to specifically consider an identical issue, viz :-

"(i) Whether in absence of a formal agreement/contract awarding additional works to the respondent, the respondent is entitled to make a claim for such work?"

{Para 30}

31. As regards the above issue, this court held as under :-

"12. Interpreting the said provision, Supreme Court in case of Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0009/1968 : AIR 1968 SC 1218, held that in the absence of a formal contract between Dominion of India and a private individual not in the form required by Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, the same was void and cannot be enforced, however, at the same time, if money is deposited and goods are supplied or if services are rendered in terms of the void contract, the provisions of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act may be applicable and where a person has lawfully done something for other not intending it to be done gratuitously and the other person enjoys the benefit thereof then such other person shall become liable to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the things so done or delivered.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

O.M.P. (Comm) 405/2023, IA Nos. 19196/2023 and 19198/2023

Decided On: 03.10.2023

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Vihaan Networks Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sachin Datta, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/6799/2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether the contractor is entitled to get the payment for work allegedly executed by it even if no concluded contract came into existence?

It is highlighted at the cost of repetition that works in question had been undertaken by the Claimant for which it has incurred the expenditure. This was done at the instance of USOF/BSNL. Had the work been finally awarded, the Claimant would have recovered the amount of expenditure. Since that is not done, the Claimant would be entitled to the expenditure incurred in view of the provisions of Section 70 of the Contract Act, which reads as under:

"70. Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered."{Para 114}

115. This provision incorporates the doctrine Quantum Meruit. According to contract law, quantum meruit is a doctrine that states there is an inferred promise to pay a fair amount for work and the materials provided, even without a lawful, enforceable agreement between the parties. A party who carries out a worthwhile service for another party normally participates in a written, legally binding agreement or contract before fulfilling the service, especially when the party providing the service is in the business of executing that service."

 Likewise, the conclusion that the respondent/claimant was entitled to reimbursement of expenses incurred by it notwithstanding absence of a concluded contract was predicated upon Section 70 of the Contract Act which incorporates the doctrine of quantum meruit. The said view is not liable to be interfered, particularly on the touchstone of Section 34 of the A & C Act, 1996. (Para 28)

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

O.M.P. (Comm) 405/2023, IA Nos. 19196/2023 and 19198/2023

Decided On: 03.10.2023

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Vihaan Networks Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sachin Datta, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/6799/2023.

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence when suit for specific performance of contract is based on oral agreement?

There is no dispute that even a decree for specific performance can be granted on the basis of oral contract. Lord Du Parcq in a case (AIR 1946 Privy Council) observed, while deciding a suit for specific performance, that an oral contract is valid, binding and enforceable. A decree for specific performance could be passed on the basis of oral agreement. This view of a Privy Council was followed by this Court in the case of Koillipara Sriramulu vs. T. Aswatha Narayana, AIR 1968 SC 1028, and held that an oral agreement with a reference to a future formal contract will not prevent a binding bargain between the parties.

20. However, in a case where the plaintiff come forward to seek a decree for specific performance of contract of sale of immoveable property on the basis of an oral agreement or a written contract, heavy burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that there was consensus ad idem between the parties for the concluded agreement for sale of immoveable property. Whether there was such a concluded contract or not would be a question of fact to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each individual case. It has to be established by the plaintiffs that vital and fundamental terms for sale of immoveable property were concluded between the parties.

Supreme Court of India

K. Nanjappa (D) By Lrs vs R.A. Hameed @ Ameersab (D)By Lrs. & ... on 2 September, 2015

Bench: M.Y. Eqbal, C. Nagappan

REPORTABLE

Citation;(2016) 1 SCC 762

Print Page

Whether compensation for breach of contract can be claimed when there is no concluded contract?

With regard to the second point for determination, admittedly, the
Appellants have failed to produce any document on record to substantiate their
contention that any amounts were paid to the Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 in
connection with the disputed transaction. We have already come to the conclusion
that the correspondence between the parties would only disclose that the
negotiations in respect of the sale of the disputed property were in progress
between the parties though there was no concluded agreement entered into in
between them. In this background, we will examine whether the Appellants can
claim any compensation from the Respondents. Section 73 of the Indian Contract
Act, inter alia, provides that when a contract is broken, the party who suffers by
such breach is entitled to receive from the party who has broken the contract,
compensation for any such loss or damage caused to him, which naturally arose in
the usual course of things from such breach or if the party knew when they made
the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. In the present case, the
question of invoking the said provisions does not arise as there was no concluded
contract between the parties nor the correspondence on record suggests that the

parties had contemplated for payment of any compensation in case of any breach
of the terms of the Contract Act. In such circumstances, the question of claiming
any compensation in terms of Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, would not
arise.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
FIRST APPEAL NO. 181 OF 2009
Rizvi Builders,

V e r s u s
 Lamarck R. c. Clemente (deceased)

 Coram :- F. M. REIS,
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
Date : 22nd January, 2015
Citation; 2015(4) MHLJ 384

Print Page

Whether party can back out from concluded contract on the ground that terms of contract are opposed to public policy?

Mr. Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, also challenged the arbitral award on the ground that the same is in conflict with the public policy of India. We do not find any substance in the said submission. This Court, in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (supra), observed that the term ‘public policy of India’ is required to be interpreted in the context of jurisdiction of the Court where the validity of award is challenged before it becomes final and executable. The Court held that an award can be set aside if it is contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law or the interest of India, or if there is patent illegality. In our view, the said decision will not in any way come into rescue of the appellant. As noticed above, the parties have entered into concluded contract, agreeing terms and conditions of the said contract, which was finally acted upon. In such a case, the parties to the said contract cannot back out and challenge the award on the ground that the same is against the public policy. Even assuming the ground available to the appellant, the award cannot be set aside as because it is not contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law or against the interest of India or on the ground of patent illegality.

Supreme Court of India

Swan Gold Mining Ltd vs Hindustan Copper Ltd on 22 September, 2014

Author: M Eqbal

Bench: M.Y. Eqbal, Pinaki Chandra Ghose

Citation;(2015)5 SCC 739

Print Page

Unless there is a concluded contract between the parties the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for specific performance

 In a suit for specific performance it is for the plaintiff to establish that there was a binding and concluded agreement between the parties, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon various authorities. The first authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is New Mofussil Co. v. Shankerlal Narayandas Mundade; AIR 1941 Bombay 247 wherein it was held that the contract is complete when all the conditions between the parties are settled. The next authority relied upon is Rudra Das v. Kamakhya Narayan; AIR 1925 Patna 259 wherein it was held that specific performance will not be granted where parties have intended that it was not to be considered to be a concluded contract until it has been confirmed by a third party.

12. The next authority is Bengal Coal Co. v. Prosanna Kumar wherein it was laid down that onus is on the

plaintiff to prove his case. Partial admission of receipt of money does not shift the onus.

13. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in these authorities that unless there is a concluded contract between the parties the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for specific performance and the onus is on the plaintiff to prove his case.

Delhi High Court

Amrit Lal Suri vs C.P. Gupta on 20 March, 1990

Equivalent citations: AIR 1990 Delhi 224, ILR 1991 Delhi 150

Print Page