Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. In the Govt. of India Act, 1915, Section 30(3) provided that "every contract shall, be executed by such person & in such-manner as the Governor General in Council by resolution directs or authorises." Section 175(3), Govt. of India Act, 1935, goes further & requires that the contract must also be expressed to be made by the Governor General. There are many authorities which have considered the question as to whether a contract not made or executed as provided by the Act is valid or binding on the Govt. It has been held that a con tract on behalf of the Govt. must comply with the requirements laid down in the section. The provisions of the section have been held to be mandatory, & non-rcompliance with the requirements provided therein have been held to make the contract void & not binding on the Govt. It is not necessary to refer to the authorities which are well known. ;

18. Mr. Banerjee for the plff. contended that having regard to the decision of the F. C. in J.K. Gas Plant Manufacturing Co. (Rampur) Ltd, v. Emperor' 1947F. C. R, 141, it ought to be held that Section 175(3) is directory & not mandatory & non-compliance with the formalities mentioned therein does not reader the Contract void or unenforceable. Had I thought that there is any substance in this contention, I would have reported to that effect to the Chief Justice, in compliance with Chap. 5 Rule 3 of the rules of the original side. The question arose in that case as to whether Section 40 (II of Sch. 9 to the Govt. of India Act 1935 which provided that "All orders & other proceedings of the Governor General in Council shall be expressed to be made by the Governor General in Council & shall be signed by a secretary to the Govt. of India, or otherwise, as the Governor General may direct & when so signed, shall not be called In question in any legal proceedings on the ground that they were duly made by the Governor General in Council," was directory or mandatory.

Reference was also made to the case of 'Ramkissendas v. Satya Charan' 50 C WN 310. It was contended that if a statute created an obligation & provided in the same section or passage a specific means or procedure for enforcing it no other method than that thus provided could be used for the purpose. Strong reliance was placed in the case of 'Mohori Bibi v. Dharmadas Ghosh', 30 I. A. 114, where it was. held that the contract of a minor was void. It was then contended on behalf of the appellant that though a contract by a minor was void, the minor was bound under Section 65 Contract Act to restore the advantage received under the void contract. In repelling this contention the Privy Council observed as follows:

He also came to the conclusion that Section 70, applied to the facts of the case & there was nothing unlawful in permitting the deft, to remove the rubbish or night-soil.

51. In 'Ledu v. Hiralal', 43 Cal 115, a suit was filed to enforce a contract for return of money paid to a Nazir to secure an appointment as a District Court peon for the plff's son. The suit was held not to be maintainable, the agreement being void ab initio, its object being opposed to public policy. On behalf of the plff. Section 65 was relied on. It was held that the words of the section could only be applied in such cases as that of an agreement which is subsequently found to be void on account of some latent defect or of circumstances unknown at the date of the agreement or of a contract which is afterwards made void by circumstances which supervened & it did not apply to an agreement which was void on the face of it or was void ab initio. It is to be observed, that in this case the contract was illegal & no Court could give any assistance to a party to re-cover money paid under a contract which was void on account of illegality & where the parties were in pari delicto. It is also to be observed that it has now been held in 50 I A 69 that Section 65 applies to contract which is void from its very inception.