Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Where the representee has been induced by misrepresentation, whether fraudulent or innocent, to enter into a contract or transaction with a representor which, unless and until rescinded, would be binding on the parties, such a contract or transaction is voidable at the option of the representee. This means that the representee, on discovery of the truth, has a right to elect whether he will affirm or disaffirm the contract or transaction, and if he adopts the latter course, is entitled to give notice to the representor of repudiation and demand from him a complete restoration of the status quo. In the event of his demand not being complied with, he may, subject to certain conditions and affirmative defenses, maintain an action or analogous proceedings for the purpose of having the contract or transaction declared void and rescinded by the Court, in which event it is deemed to have been void ab initio."

"Section 2(1) of the Indian Contract Act, 1870 defines a voidable contract as: "An agreement which is enforceable by law at the option of one or more of the parties thereto, but not at the option of others, is a voidable contract." This provision indicates that if a contract is tainted by fraud, the affected party has the option to either enforce or void the contract. It is their choice, which must be exercised within the framework of the law.
Section 14 elaborates that: "Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by coercion and undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake." This reinforces that if consent is obtained through fraud, the agreement cannot be considered freely made and is, therefore, not valid as a binding contract unless affirmed by the aggrieved party.
Section 19A states: "When the consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, or misrepresentation, the agreement is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained. Any such contract may be set aside either absolutely, or if the party who was entitled to avoid it has received any benefit there under, upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem just." This section specifically outlines that a contract obtained through fraudulent means is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was induced by fraud. The aggrieved party has the right to either avoid the contract entirely or seek a remedy that adjusts for any benefit they may have received.

41. As the plaintiffs have alleged fraud, Ex.D1 is a voidable contract as per Section 2(1). Their contention that they never agreed to the terms of Ex.D1 align with Sections 10 and 14 which assert that an agreement without free consent due to fraud is not enforceable. Section 19A further supports the plaintiffs position, establishing that they have the right to repudiate the agreement. The plaintiffs unilateral action in issuing a notice and filing a suit is consistent with their right to avoid the contract, asserting that they never consented to it due to fraudulent misrepresentation. The intention behind Sections 19 and 19A is to protect parties from contracts formed under undue influence or fraud, giving them the power to nullify the agreement and restore the status quo. The plaintiffs' case demonstrates that Ex.D1 is voidable due to the alleged fraud. The contract cannot be enforced as the plaintiffs have not consented freely due to the fraudulent actions of Defendant No.1. The relevant provisions of the Indian Contract Act, when applied to the facts at hand, clearly indicate that the plaintiffs are entitled to seek rescission of Ex.D1 and can have it declared void if their allegations are proven.