Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: coercion indian contract act Year: 1913 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.084 seconds)

Feb 25 1913 (PC)

Kanhaya Lal Vs. the National Bank of India Limited

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-25-1913

Reported in : (1913)15BOMLR472

..... lawful alternative.9. the main contention, however, was that the allegations in the plaint did not show ' coercion ' according to indian law. it was contended that nothing could be ' coercion ' under indian law unless it satisfied the definition of ' coercion ' ' which is found ins. 15 of the indian contract act and that the allegations in the plaint failed so to do because they did not show that the ..... is not sound and that it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the object and effect of section 15 of the indian contract act.10. section 15 forms part of a chapter which specially deals with the requisites of a valid contract. this chapter commences with section of, which may be regarded as the fundamental section, and which reads as follows:-all agreements ..... a definition which applies to the consideration whether there has been ' free consent ' to an agreement so as to render it a contract under section 10. this explains why in the definition of ' coercion' it is limited to an unlawful act done ' with the intention of causing the person to enter into an agreement.' but it would be to make nonsense of the ..... relates to 'free consent' as an element kai in the making of contracts. it is natural, therefore, that when 'coercion' comes to be defined in section 15 for the purposes of section 14 it is defined as follows:- coercion is the committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the indian penal code or the unlawful detaining or threatening to detain any property to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1913 (PC)

Raja Rajeswara Dorai Alias Muthuramalinga Dorai Late a Minor Through H ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-03-1913

Reported in : (1915)ILR38Mad321

..... , ought to be judicially set aside as a necessary preliminary to the granting to the plaintiff of reliefs consequent upon the wiping out of the contract or deed. the indian contract act, section 2, clause (1), defines a voidable contract thus:an agreement which is enforceable by law at the option of one or more of the parties thereto, but not at the option of ..... which consent is caused by coercion, etc., is not a contract. however, sections 19 and 19-a loosely call an agreement caused by coercion, etc., as a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. then section 19-a is a most important section ..... ; it is as follows:when consent to an agreement is caused by undue influence, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent ..... they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.' section 14 says: consent is said to be free when it is not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.' reading sections 10 and 14 together, therefore, an agreement to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1913 (PC)

Raja Rajeswara Dorai Alias Muthu Ramalinga Dorai Late a Minor Through ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-03-1913

Reported in : 19Ind.Cas.596; (1913)24MLJ592

..... event, the suit is barred by limitation.11. reliance was placed by mr. k. srinivasa aiyangar on sections 64 and 66 of the indian contract act and section 126 of the transfer of property act and section 86 of the trusts act as shewing that, whatever may be the case elsewhere, the law of india does not require the intervention of the court to make ..... which consent is caused by coercion etc., is not a contract. however, sections 19 and 19a loosely call an agreement caused by coercion etc., as a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. then section 19 (a) is a most important section; it ..... is as follows:when consent to an agreement is caused by undue influence, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent ..... they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.' section 14 says 'consent is said to be free when it is not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.' reading sections 10 and 14 together, therefore, an agreement to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 1913 (FN)

Bradford Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-28-1913

..... make restitution for his wrongdoing. the defrauded government was to be made whole. and not by wresting from him a right, either directly or through the coercion of circumstances, but by his voluntary reparation, securing thereby the government clemency. appellant therefore was not deprived of his lands in the sense for which he ..... of certain lands, but that he was charged with fraud in regard to the lands which he relinquished, and on account of which he contends a contract arose between him and the government. this must be regarded page 228 u. s. 453 as an element in the consideration of the case. ..... attorney and by the land department of the united states, in accepting and filing the several relinquishments, whereby, it is further alleged, the united states contracted to pay petitioner the amount and value of his improvements made upon the lands, and the taxes. mr. justice mckenna delivered the opinion of the court ..... be entered for homestead purposes by other parties. it is alleged that the united states, by accepting the relinquishment of the lands, became bound and contracted with appellant to pay to and reimburse him for the price and value of the improvements made by him on the lands and the taxes paid ..... of the state might give under such conditions, the united states is not bound thereby, as no contract was established against it. 47 ct.cl. 141 affirmed. suit in the court of claims under the tucker act, so-called, to recover the sum of $15,791.92. page 228 u. s. 447 the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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