Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed (1886)
Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed (1886) ILR 10 Cal 123
1. Background of the Case
This case involves the question of whether a promise made in return for a past voluntary act can constitute valid consideration.
It is one of the leading cases interpreting the principle of consideration under Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
2. Facts of the Case
Kedarnath Bhattacharji (the plaintiff) had voluntarily saved the life of Gorie Mahomed (the defendant) from a dangerous situation.
Later, the defendant promised to pay a sum of money to the plaintiff for this act of saving his life.
When the defendant failed to pay, the plaintiff sued to enforce the promise.
3. Legal Issue
Can a promise made in return for a past voluntary act, done without prior request, be enforced as a contract?
4. Relevant Law
Section 2(d) of Indian Contract Act, 1872:
Consideration must move at the desire of the promisor.
In other words, the act constituting consideration should be done at the request of the promisor.
5. Judgment
The Calcutta High Court held that the promise to pay was enforceable.
The court found that although the act was done voluntarily, there was an implied request or that the promise was made to compensate the plaintiff for a benefit conferred.
Therefore, the promise was supported by sufficient consideration.
It distinguished this case from others where past acts were done without any request or expectation of compensation.
6. Legal Principle Established
This case established that a promise made after a voluntary act can be valid if the promisor acknowledges the act and promises to pay for it.
The promise may be considered a fresh contract supported by new consideration because the promisor accepted the benefit and made a subsequent promise.
In other words, past voluntary services can form valid consideration if followed by a promise to pay.
7. Comparison with Durga Prasad v. Baldeo
| Case | Consideration Valid? | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Durga Prasad v. Baldeo | No | Act was done without the promisor’s request, and no promise was made earlier. |
| Kedarnath Bhattacharji | Yes | Promise made after voluntary act, acknowledging the act and promising to pay. |
8. Summary
Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed clarified that a post-facto promise can constitute valid consideration, provided the promisor has accepted the benefit and made a promise in return.
This case helps expand the understanding of consideration beyond immediate acts at the promisor’s request.
RELATED Blog
0 comments