Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: a voidable contract in Seagull Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd vs Medi Xpert India Ltd on 24 January, 2022Matching Fragments
11. The onus to prove this issue was on plaintiff. It is admitted by both the parties that they have entered into agreement dated 11.09.2008, 17.09.2008, 01.07.2010, 01.06.2011 and lastly 26.04.2012. The agreement dated 26.04.2012 was the subsisting agreement between both the parties regarding which present suit has been filed.
Whether breach of contract dated 26.04.2012 occurred
12. It is admitted by the defendant that he had stopped manufacturing medicines as per the terms of agreement dated 26.04.2012 and intimated the same to the plaintiff through Ex.DW1/1. This alongwith pleadings of the defendant proves that defendant has admitted that he has not complied with the terms of the agreement dated 26.04.2012, so, breach of contract dated 26.04.2012 was committed by defendant. Defendant took the defence that the agreement dated 26.04.2012 was executed under undue influence, therefore, same was a voidable contract.
Whether agreement dated 26.04.2012 was executed under undue influence and so was a voidable contract and could not be enforced.
13. Sec.16 (1) of the Indian Contract Act 1872 defines the "undue influence" and as per which a contract is said to be induced by 'undue influence' where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other. The agreement dated 26.04.2012 was not the first contract between both the parties rather it was the 5 th contract between them and all the five contracts were mostly having the same terms and conditions except regarding duration of agreement and royalty amount. The first agreement was executed on 11.09.2008 i.e. 43 months before the present contract. So, defendant has discharged his same duties under the same terms and conditions for last 42 months before entering into the agreement dated 26.04.2012. Further, both plaintiff and defendant are companies and are represented by educated persons and there was no relation between both the parties or the persons, who were representing them, whereby, plaintiff can dominate the Will of the defendant. Therefore, the defence of the defendant that agreement dated 26.04.2012 was executed under undue influence have no legs and is a sham and is rejected outrightly.
Further, merely by being a voidable contract is does not mean that that contract could not be enforced. The party at the option of which the contract is voidable have to take necessary steps to get it rescinded. As per Sec.66 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the party has to communicate to the other party that it is revoking it in terms of Sec.6 of the Indian Contract Act and after that it has to take legal course by filing case in the court to get it rescinded. But no such steps has been taken by the defendant. Therefore, court has no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that agreement dated 26.04.2012 was not executed under undue influence and was therefore a valid contract and could be enforced.