Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

28. The learned counsel argued that late Gopalaswamy Iyengar, late Sardar Vallabbhai Patel, late Lal Bahadur Sastry and late B.Ramakrishna Rao were incorruptible public servants and that there could be no question of influencing them. As already pointed out by us earlier, the question is not about the integrity of the persons proposed to be influenced but about the tendency of the agreement.

29. Even so, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the plaintiff was entitled to a return of all the amounts advanced by him with interest. He relied upon the decisions in Hussain Baksh v. Rahmat Hussain, ILR (1889) 11 All 128 and Venkataswamy v. Nagi Reddy, AIR 1962 Andh Pra 457. Both were cases of champerty. Both were cases where the agreements wee held to the extortionate and unconscionable. In both cases the amounts actually advanced were directed to be refunded. The law is well settled in India that Champertous agreements are not as such opposed to public policy. They will not be enforced if they are extortionate and unconscionable in which the persons advancing the monies will be entitled to get a return of the same. In the present case, we are not concerned with a plain and simple champertous agreement. The object of the agreement was to influence Ministers and to incur necessary expenditure in connection therewith. There were no two independent agreements one for influencing the Ministers and the other for advancing monies. The agreement was one whole agreement and if it could not be enforced in part it could not be enforced as a whole. The whole of the agreement was tainted by the vice of being opposed to public policy.