| Citation | Lalman shukla vs Gauri Datt (1913) 40 ALJ 489 | |
| Date of judgement | 17th April 1913 | |
| Court | Allahabad high court | |
| Appellant | Lalman Shukla | |
| Respondent | Gauri Dutt | |
| Judge(s) | Justice Banerji |
INTRODUCTION
An important case that is regarded as a milestone decision is Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt. Numerous cases on the Law of Contracts have cited this case. The case investigates the significance of acceptance in a contract and demonstrates that without acceptance, a contract is void. Concerned in the case is the legality of a contract. Section 8 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 talks on the idea of a contract’s legality.
FATES
- The nephew of the defendant (Gauri Dutt) vanished and fled from his wife. Gauri Dutt went out with a couple of his servants to look for him after learning this. One of the servants sent to look for the missing nephew was the plaintiff (Lalman Shukla). The money for travel and other expenditures was provided to the staff. Lalman Shukla made the trip from Kanpur to Haridwar in order to look for his nephew.
- The defendant announced that anyone who successfully located the missing nephew and returned him to his family without incident would receive Rs. 501 in reward money while the plaintiff was abroad. The plaintiff, however, was unaware of this offer because the announcement was made while he was out of the office. The defendant provided the plaintiff two sovereigns and a sum of Rs. 20 after locating the nephew and returning him to his home. The complainant was content and did not make any further demands.
- The defendant terminated the plaintiff’s employment and discharged him from his position about six months later. In response to this action, the plaintiff requested the prize money, or the Rs. 501, which he said was his due because he had found his lost nephew. As a result, Lalman Shukla sued Gauri Dutt to recover his money.
ISSUES
- Whether Lalman Shukla was entitled to receive the reward money?
- Whether there was the element of acceptance between the defendant and the plaintiff?
- Whether the situation is considered to be a contract and if there existed a contractual relation between the two?
- Whether the decision given by the lower court is valid?
JUDGEMENT
Gauri Dutt was found not guilty in the Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt case when Hon’ble Justice Banerji dismissed the appeal. After reviewing the case’s circumstances, the court concluded that there must be two crucial components for a contract to exist and for a contractual connection to exist. Offer and Acceptance are the constituent parts. Both the offer and the acceptance were absent in Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt. The plaintiff was neither present nor informed of the announcement at the time the offer was made. As a result, the plaintiff was not eligible to receive the prize money for returning the missing nephew home in accordance with the Indian Contract Act of 1872. The Allahabad High Court upheld the lower court’s verdict and did not reverse it.
REFERENCE
https://www.legalserviceindian.com
This Article is written by Chahak Agarwal of Lloyd school of law , greater Noida, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
