Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-01-1955
Reported in : AIR1956All383; 7STC579(All)
..... of a contract, section 21 enacts that that contract is not for that reason voidable. if money is paid under that contract, it cannot be said that that money was ..... apply to the case of claim against 'the state' as the 'state' is not a 'person' within the meaning of section 72, indian contract act. whether or not the ruling of the privy council is binding on this court after the commencement of the constitution. i am in respectful ..... 'jagadish prosad v. produce exchange corporation ltd air 1946 cal 245 (i), it was held that the word 'mistake' in section 72, indian contract act included not only a mistake of fact but also a mistake of law and if was further pointed out that this section did not conflict with ..... respondent firm contended that the principle upon which the advocate general relies has no application in india; it founds its claim on section 72, indian contract act which provides that a person to whom money has been paid' or any-thing delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or ..... contract. the privy council settled the law ultimately when it held in , that the word 'mistake' in section 72 includes a mistake of law and that money paid under a mistake of law could be recovered and that that section does not conflict with the provisions of section 21, indian contract act. said their lordships: 'if a mistake of law has led to the formation .....Tag this Judgment!