Ajudhia Prasad v Chandan Lal
Ajudhia Prasad v. Chandan Lal
1. Case Background
This case deals with Contract Law, specifically focusing on the discharge of contract due to impossibility.
The facts involve a contract for the sale of goods, where performance became impossible due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties.
2. Facts of the Case
Ajudhia Prasad entered into a contract to sell certain goods to Chandan Lal.
Before the delivery of goods, an unforeseen event occurred that made the delivery impossible.
The central question was whether the contract was discharged due to impossibility and whether Ajudhia Prasad was liable for non-performance.
3. Legal Issue
Can a contract be discharged on the ground of impossibility of performance when a party is unable to perform due to unforeseen circumstances beyond their control?
What are the consequences of such discharge under Indian Contract Law?
4. Judgment
The court held that performance of the contract became impossible due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties.
Hence, the contract was discharged by operation of law under the principle of frustration.
The party who was unable to perform was not liable for breach of contract because the impossibility excused non-performance.
The judgment emphasized that if an act becomes impossible after the contract is made, parties are freed from obligations.
5. Legal Principles Established
The case reinforced the doctrine of frustration of contract under Indian law (which aligns with Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act).
A contract becomes void when its performance becomes impossible due to an unforeseen event not caused by either party.
Neither party can claim damages or enforce the contract after frustration.
6. Significance
The case is a leading example of how impossibility discharges contractual obligations.
It clarified the scope of Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act regarding supervening impossibility.
Protects parties from liability in situations where external events prevent contract fulfillment.
7. Summary
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Parties | Ajudhia Prasad (seller) vs Chandan Lal (buyer) |
| Issue | Discharge of contract due to impossibility |
| Legal Principle | Doctrine of frustration under Section 56 |
| Judgment | Contract discharged; no liability for breach |
| Significance | Clarified the effect of supervening impossibility |
RELATED Blog
0 comments