Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Although there may have been a difference of opinion and conflicting authorities, I think it is now settled that, in the absence of an express statutory provision requiring a contract under seal, the requirement of the corporate seal at common law is subject to this exception, and the case of Lawford v. Billericay Rural District Council [1903] 1 K.B. 772 was referred to and there being no statutory prohibition applicable to the case, the plaintiff was held entitled on a quantum meruit.

40. In the cases decided in the Indian Courts, similar provisions in other Acts have been construed to be mandatory, and non-compliance therewith has been held to render the agreement unenforceable. See Chairman, South Barrackpore Municipality v. Amulya Nath Chatterjee [1907] 34 Cal. 1030, Mathura Mohan Saha v. Ram Kumar Saha [1916] 43 Cal. 790, Eziekiet & Co. v. Annada Charan Sen A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 35, Radha Krishna Das v. Municipal Board of Benares [1905] 27 All. 592, Raman Chetti v. Municipal Council of Kumbakonam [1907] 30 Mad. 290; Some of these were cases of executory contracts, and it is pointed out on behalf of the respondents that in the case of Ahmedabad Municipality v. Sulemanji Ismalji [1903] 27 Bom. 618, the rule was applied in the case of an executory contract, whereas in the case of Abaji Sitaram Modah v. Trimbak Municipality [1903], 28 Bom. 66 the same learned Judges held that though a contract by a corporation must ordinarily be made (Under seal, still where there is that which is known as an executed consideration, an action will lie, though this formality has not been observed. In the case of Radha Krishna Das v. The Municipal Board of Benares [1905] 27 All. 592, however, following the English cases of Young and Co. v. Mayor and Corporation of Royal Leamington Spa [1883] 8 A.C. 517 and British Insulated Wire Co. Ltd. v. Prescot Urban District Council [1895] 2 Q.B. 463 the learned Judges held that the rule applied to executed consideration also, and did not follow the statement of the law laid down in case of Abaji Sitaram Modah v. Trimbak Municipality [1903] 28 Bom. 66.

46. In the latter case (which was a case of an executory contract) it was the defendant who pleaded the invalidity of the agreement. Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C.J., observed:

It is open to the defendant to say that it is not binding on him inasmuch as it is not binding on the plaintiff. We think that where a contract is invalid so far as one party is concerned by reason of statutory provisions, it cannot bind the other party also.

47. There remains the question whether it was a case of great urgency in which there was no time to comply with the requirements of the Statute. In the first place that principle cannot apply to a case such as the present, where the Statute requires the agreement to be executed in a certain manner, and secondly, there is nothing to show that the agreement could not be executed according to the Statute before the steam-tug Gekko sailed from Chittagong. It is true that the agreement was executed on behalf of the Port Commissioners of Chittagong by the Port Officer of Moulmein, but that was not in accordance with the original agreement to tow the War Puffln.