Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 141 views

    BELAB Case

    Uploaded by

    prashant dwivedi
    This case examines whether Lalman Shukla was entitled to a reward offered by his master Gauri Dutt for finding Dutt's missing nephew. Dutt announced a Rs. 501 reward for whoever found his nephew. Shukla found the nephew but Dutt refused to pay, so Shukla filed a case. The court ruled that for a valid contract to exist under Indian law, there must be knowledge and acceptance of the offer. Since Shukla was unaware of the reward offer before finding the nephew, performing his duty as a servant, there was no acceptance and thus no valid contract. The court dismissed Shukla's suit against Dutt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    BELAB Case

    Uploaded by

    prashant dwivedi
    141 views9 pages
    This case examines whether Lalman Shukla was entitled to a reward offered by his master Gauri Dutt for finding Dutt's missing nephew. Dutt announced a Rs. 501 reward for whoever found his nephew. Shukla found the nephew but Dutt refused to pay, so Shukla filed a case. The court ruled that for a valid contract to exist under Indian law, there must be knowledge and acceptance of the offer. Since Shukla was unaware of the reward offer before finding the nephew, performing his duty as a servant, there was no acceptance and thus no valid contract. The court dismissed Shukla's suit against Dutt.

    Original Title

    BELAB Case ppt

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case examines whether Lalman Shukla was entitled to a reward offered by his master Gauri Dutt for finding Dutt's missing nephew. Dutt announced a Rs. 501 reward for whoever found his nephew. Shukla found the nephew but Dutt refused to pay, so Shukla filed a case. The court ruled that for a valid contract to exist under Indian law, there must be knowledge and acceptance of the offer. Since Shukla was unaware of the reward offer before finding the nephew, performing his duty as a servant, there was no acceptance and thus no valid contract. The court dismissed Shukla's suit against Dutt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    141 views9 pages

    BELAB Case

    Uploaded by

    prashant dwivedi
    This case examines whether Lalman Shukla was entitled to a reward offered by his master Gauri Dutt for finding Dutt's missing nephew. Dutt announced a Rs. 501 reward for whoever found his nephew. Shukla found the nephew but Dutt refused to pay, so Shukla filed a case. The court ruled that for a valid contract to exist under Indian law, there must be knowledge and acceptance of the offer. Since Shukla was unaware of the reward offer before finding the nephew, performing his duty as a servant, there was no acceptance and thus no valid contract. The court dismissed Shukla's suit against Dutt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 9

    Lalman Shukla vs Gauri Dutt - Case study

    Submitted to 
    Renu mam
    Submitted by 
    Piyush Sharma
    Prashant Dwivedi
    Prajjwal Gupta
    Pradyumn Mishra
    Anisha
    Pragati srivastava
    Case characters

    Gauri dutt and her nephew Lalman sukhla ( gauri dutt` servent )
    Landmark judgment for the
    validity of the contract under
    the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 
    Facts Of The Case:
     n this case, the defendant Gauri Dutt’s Nephew had absconded and
    was nowhere to be found.
     search of the missing nephew.
     The plaintiff Lalman Shukla was one of the servants who had gone out
    in search of the nephew.
     When Lalman Shukla had left the house
     defendant announced a reward of Rs. 501 for whosoever found Dutt’s
    nephew. 
     the plaintiff claimed the money from the defendant and the latter denied
    to pay the said remuneration.
     As a result the plaintiff Lalman Shukla filed a case against Gauri Dutt,
    his master, for not rewarding him as he was entitled to.
    Issues Raised In This Case:

    Whether Lalman Shukla was entitled to get the reward


    from Gauri Dutt for tracing the missing boy.
    Whether there was a valid acceptance of the offer made
    by the plaintiff.
    Whether there exists a contract or whether the situation
    amounts to a contract between the two. 
    Arguments On Behalf Of The Plaintiff (Lalman Shukla)

     finding the missing boy was sufficient enough for him to be entitled
    to the reward.
     He stated that it is not important to have prior knowledge about the
    reward, especially under this circumstance. 
     finding the missing boy was sufficient enough for him to be entitled to
    the reward.
     He stated that it was immaterial that the person who has performed
    the act must have the knowledge of the condition to claim the reward.
    Arguments On Behalf Of The Respondent

     he defendant asserted and strongly argued that the plaintiff Lalman Shukla
    was not aware of the offer and had no knowledge about it before finding the
    defendant’s nephew. 
     Gauri Dutt argued that according to section 2(a) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, 
     Therefore, the defendant contended that assent was essential to create a
    contract between both parties. This means that before accepting the offer the
    offeree must have complete knowledge about the facts to give assent or
    approval.
     But in this particular case, the plaintiff was completely unaware of the reward
    which was associated with it and the plaintiff was merely doing his duty.
    The Judgement
     In the said case, the petitioners’ appeal against the respondent Gauri Dutt was
    dismissed by the court. 
     After analyzing all the facts of the case, the honourable high court held that for
    creating or entering into a valid contract there has to be knowledge and assent to
    the offeree made by the proposer. 
     Here, the plaintiff did not know the reward before performing his act.
    He only came to know about it later, in which case there was no possibility
    of accepting the offer. 
     Hence, there was no contract. Therefore, Lalman Shukla was not entitled to
    get or claim the reward. 
     The judge reiterated that the plaintiff was fulfilling his obligations as a servant
    of tracing the missing boy which was a part of his duty. Therefore, the plaintiff’s
    suit against the defendant was completely dismissed by the court.
    In The End…
     The case between the plaintiff Lalman Shukla and the defendant Gauri Dutt
    examined the validity of the contract in the absence of prior acceptance.
     According to the judgement given by the Allahabad high court, a contract
    without acceptance is void. 

     Judge to Lalman sukla

    You might also like