Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.28 seconds)The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 21 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sri Sri Shiba Prasad Singh vs Maharaja Srish Chandra Nandi on 18 July, 1949
The principle of estoppel which has been adverted to by the
Privy Council in Shiba Prasad Singh v. Srish Chandra Nandi
(2) as disentitling the plaintiff to recover the monies paid
under mistake can best be illustrated by the decision of the
Appeal Court in England reported in Holt v. Markham (3) "-
here it was held that as the defendant had been led by the
plaintiffs' conduct to believe that he might treat the money
as his own, and in that belief had altered his position by
spending it, the plaintiffs were estopped from alleging that
it was paid under a mistake; and this brings us to a
consideration of point No. 2 above stated.
Re: (ii): Whether the principle of estoppel applies or
there are circumstances attendant upon the transaction which
disentitle the respondent to recover back the monies,
depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No
question of estoppel can ever arise where both the parties,
as in the present case, are labouring under the mistake of
law and one party is not more to blame than the other.
Estoppel arises only when the plaintiff by his acts or
conduct makes a representation to the defendant of a certain
state of facts which is acted upon by the defendant to his
detriment; it is only then that the plaintiff is estopped
from setting up a different state of facts. Even if this
position can be availed of where the representation is in
regard to a position in law, no
(1) [1946] 1 Ch. 236, 241. (2) [1949] L. R. 76 I. A. 244.
(3) [1923] 1 K.B. 504.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 56 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Budh Prakash Jai Prakash And Anr. vs The Sales Tax Officer And Ors. on 27 February, 1952
If this is the true position the fact that both the parties,
viz., the respondent and the appellants were labouring under
a mistake of law and the respondent made the payments
voluntarily would not disentitle it from receiving the said
amounts. The amounts paid by the respondent under the U. P.
Sales Tax Act in respect of the forward transactions in
silver, had already been deposited by the respondent in
advance in accordance with the U. P. Sales Tax Rules and
were appropriated by the State of U. P. towards the
discharge of the liability for the sales tax on the res-
pective assessment orders having been passed. Both the
parties were then labouring under a mistake of law, the
legal position as established later on by the decision of
the Allahabad High Court in Messrs. Budh Prakash Jai
Prakash v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur (2) subsequently
confirmed by this Court in Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit v.
Budh Prakash Jai Prakash (3) not having been known to the
parties at the relevant
(1) (1949) L. R. 76 1. A. 244. (2) (1952) A.L.J. 332.
(3) [1955] I S.C.R. 243.
Wolf And Sons vs Dadiba Khimji And Co. on 31 July, 1919
" Those learned judges who have held that mistake in this
context must be given a limited meaning appear to have been
largely influenced by the view expressed in Pollock and
Mulla's commentary on s. 72 of the Indian Contract Act,
where it is stated (Indian Contract & Specific Relief Acts,
6th Edn., p. 402): " Mistake of law is not expressly
excluded by the words of this section; but s. 21 shows that
it is not included ". For example, Wolf & Sons v. Dadyaba
Khimji & Co. (2). Macleod J. said referring to s. 72 " on
the face of it mistake includes mistake of law. But it is
said that under s. 21 a contract is not voidable on the
ground that the parties contracted under a mistaken belief
of the law existing in British India, and the effect of that
section would be neutralized if a party to such a contract
could recover what he had paid by means of s. 72 though
under s. 21 the contract remained legally enforceable. This
seems to be the argument of Messrs. Pollock and Mulla and
as far as I can see it is sound."
The Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit vs Messrs. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash on 3 May, 1954
If this is the true position the fact that both the parties,
viz., the respondent and the appellants were labouring under
a mistake of law and the respondent made the payments
voluntarily would not disentitle it from receiving the said
amounts. The amounts paid by the respondent under the U. P.
Sales Tax Act in respect of the forward transactions in
silver, had already been deposited by the respondent in
advance in accordance with the U. P. Sales Tax Rules and
were appropriated by the State of U. P. towards the
discharge of the liability for the sales tax on the res-
pective assessment orders having been passed. Both the
parties were then labouring under a mistake of law, the
legal position as established later on by the decision of
the Allahabad High Court in Messrs. Budh Prakash Jai
Prakash v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur (2) subsequently
confirmed by this Court in Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit v.
Budh Prakash Jai Prakash (3) not having been known to the
parties at the relevant
(1) (1949) L. R. 76 1. A. 244. (2) (1952) A.L.J. 332.
(3) [1955] I S.C.R. 243.