Skip to content


Abdul Rashid Khan Vs. Nisar Muhammad Khan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1924All143; (1923)ILR45All691
AppellantAbdul Rashid Khan
RespondentNisar Muhammad Khan and anr.
Excerpt:
act no. xiii of 1859 (workman's breach of contract act), sections 2 and 4 - breach of contract by workman--proceedings against workman compromised and fresh contract entered into, but without fresh advance. - - he worked for a few months after the execution of the agreement but failed to complete the engagement......and then broke off the engagement. the complainant thereupon proceeded against him again to enforce his agreement and obtained an order, the correctness of which forms the subject of this reference. the view taken by the learned sessions judge is that inasmuch as no advance in cash was made at the time of the second agreement, section 2 of act no. xiii of 1859 as amended by ac* no. xii of 1920 was inapplicable. but the advance may be an advance made at that time for the performance of the engagement or at some time earlier. the new contract entered into under the circumstances above-mentioned merely superseded the old contract, and its validity is recognized by section 4 of the act, which provides that the word 'contract' as used therein would include all contracts falling within the.....
Judgment:

Kanhaiya Lal, J.

1. This is a reference by the. Sessions Judge of Moradabad in a case in which the accused Abdul Rashid Khan has been directed to pay Rs. 300 to the complainant, Haji Nisar Muhammad Khan, by certain instalments, under Section 2 of Act No. XIII of 1859 as amended by Act No. XII of 1920. It appears that in 1920 Abdul Rashid Khan obtained an advance of Rs. 300 for doing a certain work. He worked for a few months after the execution of the agreement but failed to complete the engagement. He was arrested, fad, on being charged with a breach of the contract, executed another agreement in lieu of the former advance to work for another period of one year. Thereupon the complaint originally filed against him was withdrawn. After the execution of the second agreement he worked again for a little while and then broke off the engagement. The complainant thereupon proceeded against him again to enforce his agreement and obtained an order, the correctness of which forms the subject of this reference. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is that inasmuch as no advance in cash was made at the time of the second agreement, Section 2 of Act No. XIII of 1859 as amended by Ac* No. XII of 1920 was inapplicable. But the advance may be an advance made at that time for the performance of the engagement or at some time earlier. The new contract entered into under the circumstances above-mentioned merely superseded the old contract, and its validity is recognized by Section 4 of the Act, which provides that the word 'contract' as used therein would include all contracts falling within the meaning of the Indian Contract Act of 1872, except where the period specified for performance exceeds one year. The new contract provided for the performance of the engagement for one year only and was valid and enforceable. The order of the trying Magistrate need not, therefore, be disturbed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //