Is indian contract act, 1872 applicable against breaching party when subject matter is subjudice?
S Singh
(Querist) 13 August 2015
This query is : Resolved
Sir,
Plz. take this like an academic query.
1. Ram takes loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash from Shyam.
2. Ram deposits the cash into his bank.
3. Shyam asks for his amount back from Ram.
4. Ram denies to give back.
5. Shyam lodges an FIR and also files a suit against Ram that the loan was taken by fraud and forgery.
6. Cases are pending in both the Criminal and Civil Courts.
7. Bank came to know that the amount kept in the name of Ram actually belongs to Shyam.
8. Bank handovers the amount to Shyam and issues a letter to Ram informing amount debited and closure of account.
So is the Indian Contract Act, 1872, sections 39, 73, 151 and 153 applicable in a suit against the breaching party i.e. "the Bank"?
Can a Suit for compensation of damages arising out of anticipatory repudiation (breach) [under sec.39 of Indian Contract Act] be filed by making only the bank as party and be successful?
Can compensation be received today by Ram even if the Criminal and Civil Cases are pending?
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 13 August 2015
Mr Singh
Not only the stated sections, The complete Contract Act 1872 is applicable.
How Section 39 Comes in the picture? It has no role in a case between Ram and Bank or even Ram and Shyam.
Ram is entitling to compensation despite to civil and criminal cases against him if he has a cause of action with him.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 13 August 2015
Repeated query:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Is-indian-contract-act-1872-applicable-against-breaching-party-when-subject-matter-is-subjudice--553606.asp#.VcwzJLKqqko
Guest
(Expert) 13 August 2015
Repeated academic query.
P. Venu
(Expert) 13 August 2015
Is there any real problem?
S Singh
(Querist) 13 August 2015
I (Ram)had earlier issued notices for the reinstatement to the bank.
The bank agrees that they had committed a grave mistake by handing the amount to the loaner(Shyam).
But denies reinstatement of the amount as the amount has been paid to the loaner and is not recoverable.
They are stating that my dispute is originally with the loaner, hence not to approach them but instead approach the loaner.
Ques.: To whom am I entitled reinstatement/relief, is it the loaner or from the bank?
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 13 August 2015
It is Bank.
Still s. 39 is nowhere in picture.
S Singh
(Querist) 13 August 2015
Is it that the Indian Contract Act, 1872 binds the bank with its account holder?
Further there was an order of a Civil court upon the bank to maintain status-quo with respect of the amount which was also breached by the bank.
Thats why I (Ram) was mentioning about s.39 as the bank states that you couldn't have got the amount as of now as your Criminal and Civil cases are pending.
The bank has sent letter to me regarding the debit of the aforesaid amount and closure of account hence I was stating that an anticipatory repudiation (breach) is caused by the bank for refusal to perform in the future if I had became entitled to the amount in the future.
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 13 August 2015
S. 39 is not meant as such. It is different.
S Singh
(Querist) 13 August 2015
Is S. 73 applicable?
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 25 August 2015
