Siddharth pandey 1

BA0140061

THE TAMIL

NADU

NATIONAL

LAW

SCHOOL
B.A.LLB,

(HONS)

FIRST SEMESTER 2014-2015

CONTRACTS PROJECT-CASE ANALYSIS
ON
State of West Bengal
Vs.
B.K. Mondal and Sons
AIR1962SC779, [1962] Supp1SCR876

DATE- 20,APRIL,2015

SUBMITTED BYSUBMITTED TOSIDDHARTHPANDEY

PROF. K.

GOVINDRAJAN
(ROLL
(FACULTY)

NUMBER-BA0140061)

Siddharth pandey 2
BA0140061

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the outset, I thank the Almighty who gave me the strength to accomplish this
project with sheer hard work and honesty.
I take this opportunity to observe protocol to show my deep gratitude to our
revered

contracts Course Teacher, PROF. K. GOVINDRAJAN (FACULTY)

for his kind gesture in allotting me such topic as research project, which is full of
knowledge and is related to our future study of the constitution. Her timely
advice, direction and valuable assistance tremendously boosted me during the
making of this project.
Secondly, all this wouldnt have been possible without my parents and friends who
gave their valuable time for guidance, boosted my confidence and helped me a lot
in completing this project without any drawbacks. Hence I am forever indebted
and grateful to them.
Thirdly, I am very much thankful to the staff and administration of TNNLS who
provided valuable sources of information in the form of library and database
connections.
The successful creation of this project is due to the background work and cooperation of many persons. So I once again take this opportunity and privilege to
convey my deepest regards and thanks to all those who was involved directly or
indirectly in the making of this project.

Date:-20-4-15

SUPERVISORS CERTIFICATE

Siddharth pandey 3
BA0140061

This is to certify that the Research Project Cum Case Analysis entitled: State of West
Bengal Vs. B.K. Mondal and Sons AIR1962SC779, [1962] Supp1SCR876 submitted
to the TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI in
fulfillment of the requirements for internal component for B.A; LL.B (HONS.),
Second Semester is an original and bona-fide research work carried out by
SIDDHARTH PANDEY

under my supervision and guidance. No part of this study

has been submitted to any University for the award of any Degree or Diploma
whatsoever.

Prof. Ara Muthan (

Date: 14-04-15
Place: Tiruchirappalli

Siddharth pandey 4
BA0140061

OBJECTIVE

This research paper is an attempt to understand the case as well as application of

section 70 of the Indian Contracts Act-1872. Also it is a main topic dealt with
quasi-contracts which will help us in exam.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY &

INTERPRETATION
This research is primarily descriptive and analytical in nature. Primary, Secondary and
Electronic resources have been avidly used to gather information about the topic.
Books and other references as guided by Faculty of contracts-1 have been given prime
importance which was helpful in giving this project a firm structure. Websites,
dictionaries and articles have also been referred.
Footnotes have been provided wherever needed to acknowledge the source.

SOURCE

The researcher has primarily referred to secondary sources such as books and articles
while writing this research paper cum case analysis.

MODE OF CITATION

A uniform mode of citation has been used throughout this research paper which is
based loosely on the style prescribed in The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation.

Siddharth pandey 5
BA0140061

INTRODUCTION
The said case deals with The liability to pay for an non-gratious act, followed by
section 70 of the Indian Contract Act-1874 which prevents unjust enrichment and it
applies individuals, Corporations and Government part of quasi-contracts.
Quasi-Contracts
Quasi means semingly; apparently but not really. Quasi is a Latin word which
meansas if
A quasi-contract or implied-in-law

contract or

constructive

contract

is

a fictional contract created by courts forequitable, not contractual, purposes. A quasicontract is not an actual contract, but is a legal substitute formed to
imposeequity between two parties. The concept of a quasi-contract is that of a
contract that should have been formed, even though in actuality it was not. It is used
when a court finds it appropriate to create an obligation upon a non-contracting party
to avoid injustice and to ensure fairness. It is invoked in circumstances of and is
connected with the concept of restitution.
Dr. Winfeild defines quasi contracts as a liability not exclusively referable to any
other head of law imposed on a particular person to pay money to another, on the
ground of unjust benefit.
Dr. Jenks defines quasi-contract as a situation on which law imposes on one person
on the ground of natural justice and obligation similar to that which arises from a true
contract, although no contract \, express or implied in fact been entered into by them.
Generally the existence of an actual or implied-in-fact contract is required for the
defendant to be liable for services rendered.
Salmond defines quasi-contract as There are certain obligations which are not in
truth contractual in the sense of resting on agreement, but which the law treats as if
they were.
Example

Siddharth pandey 6
BA0140061

A delivers goods to B mistaking him to be C and B consumes them. B is bound to

pay compensation to A for the value of goods. Law imposes such a duty on B. This is
a quasi-contract.

Characteristics Of Quasi-Contract
The following are the essential ingredients of quasi-contract.
1. Quasi contract is not created by the operation of contract but is imposed by
law.
2. It is strictly available against a person and not available against all the world
and hence it is a right in personam.
3. The person, who incurs expences, is entitled to receive money.
Lord Wright M.R. said:
The obligations is imposed by the court simply under circumstances of the case and
what the court decides is just and reasonable, having regard to the relationship of the
parties. It is a debt or obligation constituted by the act of law, apart from any consent
or intention of the parties or any privity of contract.1

Classification Of Quasi-Contract
There is no general accepted method of classification of quasi contracts. In modern
law, the following are the types of the quasi contracts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Action for money had and received.

Quantum meruit.
Accounts stated.
Necessaries supplied to a person incapable of contracting.
Obligations of a finder of goods.

However, the Indian Contract Act, 1872 explains the following types of quasicontracts:

1 R.S. Mynenei.

Siddharth pandey 7
BA0140061

1. Necessaries supplied to persons incapable of contracting i.e., minors, lunatics;

2.
3.
4.
5.

[Sec.68]
Reimbursement of persons paying money due to another;[Sec.69]
Obligations of persons enjoying benefit of non-gratious act;[Sec.70]
Responsibilities of finder of goods; ;[Sec.71]
Liability of persons to whom money is paid or things delivered, by mistake or
under coercion [Sec.72].

Rules relating to enforcement

1. Enforcement of contract contingent on an event
happening
2. Enforcement of contract contingent on an event nonhappening
3. When shall an event on which contract is contingent
be deemed impossible, if it is the future conduct of a
living person
4. Agreement contingent on impossible event

Theory Of Unjust Enrichment

In law, unjust enrichment is where one person is unjustly or by chance enriched at
the expense of another, and an obligation to make restitution arises, regardless of

Siddharth pandey 8
BA0140061

liability for wrongdoing.[1] A common example is when a party contracts to provide a

service, but the contract is terminated prematurely due to a breach, and the contractor
unjustly receives no compensation for partial services rendered.
Liability under the principle of unjust enrichment is wholly independent of liability
for wrongdoing. Claims in unjust enrichment do not depend upon proof of any wrong.
However, it is possible that on a single set of facts a claim based on unjust enrichment
and a claim based on a wrong may both be available. A claim based on unjust
enrichment always results in an obligation to makerestitution. A claim based on a
wrong always results in an obligation to makecompensation but may additionally
result in an obligation to make restitution. For discussion of restitution for wrongs, see
the page on restitution.
A delivers goods to B mistaking him to be C and B consumes them. B is bound to
pay compensation to A for the value of goods. Law imposes such a duty on B. This is
a quasi-contract.

FACTS
The respondent's case was that on February 8, 1944, it offered to put up certain
temporary storage godowns at Arambagh in the District of Hooghly for the use of
the Civil Supplies Department of the State of Bengal and that the said offer was
accepted by the said department by a letter dated February 12, 1944. Accordingly

Siddharth pandey 9
BA0140061

the respondent completed the said construction and its bill for Rs. 39,476/- was
duly paid in July 1944. Meanwhile, on April 7, 1944, the respondent was requested
by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Arambagh, to submit its estimate for the
construction of a kutcha road, guard room, office, kitchen and room for clerks at
Arambagh for the Department of Civil Supplies. The respondent alleged that the
Additional Deputy Director of Civil Supplies visited Arambagh on April 20, 1944,
and instructed the respondent to proceed with the construction in accordance with
the estimates submitted by it. Accordingly the respondent completed the said
constructions and a bill for Rs. 2,322/8 was submitted in that behalf to the Assistant
director of Civil Supplies on April 27, 1944. Thereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer
Arambagh required the construction of certain storage sheds at Khanakul and the
Assistant Director of Civil Supplies wrote to the respondent on April 18, 1944,
asking it to proceed with the construction of the said storage sheds. This works also
was completed by the respondent in due course and for the said work a bill for Rs.
17,003/- was submitted. In the present suit the respondent claimed that the two bills
submitted by it in which the respondent had claimed Rs. 2,322/8/- and Rs. 17,003/respectively had remained unpaid and that was the basis of the present claim.
The appellant denied all the material allegations made by the respondent in its
plaint. It alleged that the requests in pursuance of which the respondent claims to
have made the several constructions were invalid and unauthorised and did not
constitute a valid contract binding the appellant under s. 175(3) of the Government
of India Act, 1935 (hereafter called the Act). It pleaded that there was no privity of
contract between the respondent and itself and it denied its liability for the entire
claim. The written statement filed by the appellant was very vague and general in
terms and no specific or detailed pleas had been set out by the appellant in its
pleading.
The appellant disputed the correctness and validity of the said decree by preferring
an appeal to the Calcutta High Court in its civil appellate jurisdiction. The said
appeal was heard by S. R. Das Gupta and Bachawat, JJ. The two learned Judges
who heard the said appeal delivered separate though concurring judgments and
substantially confirmed the material finding recorded by the trial court. In the result
the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant then applied for

Siddharth pandey 10
BA0140061

a certificate to come to this Court but the High Court rejected its application.
Thereupon the appellant moved this Court for a special certificate and on obtaining
it has come to this Court; and the principal point which has been urged before us by
Mr. Sen on behalf of the appellant is that s. 70 of the Indian Contract Act does not
apply to the present case.

SECTION USED
Section 175 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935
Subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to the Federal Railway Authority,
all contracts made in the exercise of the executive authority of the Federation or of
a Province shall be expressed to be made by the Governor-General, or by the
Governor of the Province, as the case may be, and all such contracts and all
assurances of property made in the exercise of that authority shall be executed on
behalf of the Governor-General or Governor by such persons and in such manner
as he may direct or authorise.
Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act
Claim for necessaries supplied to person incapable of contracting, or on his account If a
person, incapable of entering into a contract, or anyone whom he is legally bound to
support, is supplied by another person with necessaries suited to his condition in life, the
person who has furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of
such incapable person.

Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act

Reimbursement of person paying money due by another, in payment of which he is
interested A person who is interested in the payment of money which another is bound by
law to pay, and who therefore pays it, is entitled to be reimbursed by the other.

Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act

Siddharth pandey 11
BA0140061

"Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to
him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit
thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to
restore, the thing so done or delivered."

Section 71
Responsibility of finder of goods A person who finds goods belonging to another,
and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee.
Section 72
Liability of person to whom money is paid, or thing delivered, by mistake or under
coercion A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake
or under coercion, must repay or return it.

ISSUES
1. The case questioned whether the State Government enjoying the benefit of
non gratuitous work, was bound to pay compensation with in the
framework of Section 175 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 - The
Trial Court found that although there was no valid contract under Section
175 (3) of the Act, the claim was justified under Section 70 of the Contract
and decreed the suit - It was held that the Courts below were right in
holding that Section 70 of the Contract Act applied to the case and the
appeal must be failed.

Siddharth pandey 12
BA0140061

2. The case a;so questioned that whether there had been a contract between the
respondent and the appellant also whether the appellant was liable to pay
the amount due for the said works. In the alternative it was alleged that if
the contract in question was invalid then the respondent's claim fell under
s. 70 of

the

Indian

Contract

Act.

JUDGMENT
However, G. K. Mitter, J., A.K. Sarkar, K.C. Das Gupta, K.N. Wanchoo, N.
Rajagopala Ayyangar

J. who tried the suit, framed five material issues on the

pleadings and recorded his findings on them. He held that having regard to the
provisions of s. 175(3) of the Act there was no valid and binding contract between the
respondent and the appellant. it was alleged that the respondent's claim fell under
s. 70 of the Indian Contract Act. The respondent had lawfully done such works not
intending to act gratuitously in that behalf and the appellant had enjoyed the benefit
thereof and were under section 70 liable to pay the bill.

Bachawat, J., of the appellate bench of the High Court correctly put the position
when he said :- "The work was certainly done at the request of these officers but it
was done under circumstances in which it is not possible to imply that the officers
personally promised to pay for the work done. There is therefore, no scope for any
argument that the work was done in course of performance of a contract between

Siddharth pandey 13
BA0140061

the plaintiff and the officers who requested him to do the work. The materials on
the record clearly shows that the plaintiff did the work for the Province of
Bengal.2

SIMILAR CASES
1. Mulam chand v. State of M.P.,[AIR 1968 SC 779]
This appeal filed by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the
Senior Civil Judge, Gangapur dated 15th September, 1965, disallowing his claim
against State Governments of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh for recovery of Rs.
1,73,165/- as price of 20,80,000 c. ft. sand alleged to have been supplied to the State
Government of Madhya Pradesh as in Hansraj gipta v. Union of India3.
The result, therefore, is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
2. Pilloo sidhwa v. Municipal Corporation ,[AIR 1970 SC 1201]
Special Civil Application No.2994 of 1999 is preferred by the residents of Vadodara
City challenging the action of Vadodara Municipal Corporation of allotting a plot
bearing Final Plot (F.P.) No. 1 of Town Planning Scheme (T.P.S.) No.9 to the
respondent no.4 at a price less than the market price in Panna lal v. Dy.
Commissioner, Bhandara.4
2 Manupatara.com
3 [AIR 1973 SC 2724]

4 [AIR 1973 SC 1174]

Siddharth pandey 14
BA0140061

The Baroda Municipal Corporation was directed to maintain statusquo after receiving
the possession for the aforesaid period.

CONCLUSION
Cases where obligation is imposed by law upon a person for the benefit of another
even in the absence of a contract, are know as quasi contract, while unjust
enrichment is where one person is unjustly or by chance enriched at the expense of
another, and an obligation to make restitution arises, regardless of liability for
wrongdoing. A common example is when a party contracts to provide a service, but
the contract is terminated prematurely due to a breach, and the contractor unjustly
receives no compensation for partial services rendered.
It is observed that from the facts of this case both the courts have found acts done by
the respondent were done in fact in pursuance of the requests invalidly made by the
relevant officers of the appeallant and so they have been accepted by the appeallant
and so they must be deemed to have been done without the contract. It was not
disputed in the courts below that the acts done by the respondent have been accepted
by the appellant and the buildings constructed have been used by it. An obligation of
this kind which is part pron the provisions of section 70 of the Indian Contracts Act1872
,a moral and natural obligation, is by the provisions of that section converted into a
legal obligation. Therefore, once we reach the conclusion that section 70 can be
invoked by the respondent against the appellant, on the findings there is no doubt that
the requsite conditions of the said section have been satisfied. That being so the court
below were right in decreeing the respondents claim.

Siddharth pandey 15
BA0140061

BIBLIOGRAPHY
List of books referred to :
1. R.S. Mynenei.
2. R.K. Bangia.

List of websites referred to:

1. www.wikipedia.org
2. www.manupatra.in
3. www.indiankanoon.com

Thankyou