Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 434 views

    Cant Understand The Case.-Ask Ayana Uttamchand v. Mohandas

    Uploaded by

    Brena Gala
    1) A minor owned a shop that was used for a sewing machine manufacturing business. The minor's guardian entered into a 2-year partnership agreement with the defendant to run the business, with the minor entitled to 4% profits. 2) After the partnership ended, the defendant did not provide accounts or return possession of the shop. The minor filed suit seeking dissolution of the partnership and return of the shop. 3) The court found that while the minor could not legally be a partner, the agreement was initially viewed as valid by both parties until the defendant argued it was void in his written statement. Therefore, Section 65 of the contract law, allowing recovery of benefits conferred under a void

    Copyright:

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

    Cant Understand The Case.-Ask Ayana Uttamchand v. Mohandas

    Uploaded by

    Brena Gala
    434 views2 pages
    1) A minor owned a shop that was used for a sewing machine manufacturing business. The minor's guardian entered into a 2-year partnership agreement with the defendant to run the business, with the minor entitled to 4% profits. 2) After the partnership ended, the defendant did not provide accounts or return possession of the shop. The minor filed suit seeking dissolution of the partnership and return of the shop. 3) The court found that while the minor could not legally be a partner, the agreement was initially viewed as valid by both parties until the defendant argued it was void in his written statement. Therefore, Section 65 of the contract law, allowing recovery of benefits conferred under a void

    Original Title

    Uttamchand v Mohandas

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) A minor owned a shop that was used for a sewing machine manufacturing business. The minor's guardian entered into a 2-year partnership agreement with the defendant to run the business, with the minor entitled to 4% profits. 2) After the partnership ended, the defendant did not provide accounts or return possession of the shop. The minor filed suit seeking dissolution of the partnership and return of the shop. 3) The court found that while the minor could not legally be a partner, the agreement was initially viewed as valid by both parties until the defendant argued it was void in his written statement. Therefore, Section 65 of the contract law, allowing recovery of benefits conferred under a void

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    434 views2 pages

    Cant Understand The Case.-Ask Ayana Uttamchand v. Mohandas

    Uploaded by

    Brena Gala
    1) A minor owned a shop that was used for a sewing machine manufacturing business. The minor's guardian entered into a 2-year partnership agreement with the defendant to run the business, with the minor entitled to 4% profits. 2) After the partnership ended, the defendant did not provide accounts or return possession of the shop. The minor filed suit seeking dissolution of the partnership and return of the shop. 3) The court found that while the minor could not legally be a partner, the agreement was initially viewed as valid by both parties until the defendant argued it was void in his written statement. Therefore, Section 65 of the contract law, allowing recovery of benefits conferred under a void

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CANT UNDERSTAND THE CASE.

    –ASK AYANA

    Uttamchand v. Mohandas

    Facts:

    The plaintiff (respondent), a minor, was owner of shop No.166 situated in Bapu Bazar,
    Jaipur. The guardian of the plaintiff entered into an agreement of partnership for carrying on
    the business of manufacturing Uttam Sewing Machines with the defendant on 31 st January,
    1959 and a deed of partnership was executed between the parties on the same day. According
    to the terms of the partnership the partnership was to be for a period of two years i.e., up to
    31st January, 1961. The plaintiff was entitled to 4% share in the profit and the defendant was
    to pay Rs 55 per month to the plaintiff out of the profits of the business for the up-keep and
    maintenance of the plaintiff which he was not bound to refund even if there were losses in the
    business. After the expiry of the term of partnership the defendant was bound to deliver
    vacant possession of the shop as well as the furniture. The defendants did not render the
    accounts of the partnership to the plaintiff, nor did he deliver vacant possession of the shop to
    him and was intending to transfer its possession to a third person. Thus the plaintiff filed a
    suit against the defendant for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts and the
    possession of shop and furniture.

    Issue:

    Is Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act applicable to the present fact situation. Is the
    respondent entitled to the possession of the shop in dispute from the appellant under the
    provisions of S.65 of the ICA?

    Contentions:

    (Defendant/Appellant)

    The agreement of partnership was void from its inception, and there was nothing discovered
    to be void because the defendant knew that the plaintiff was a minor. Moreover the plaintiff
    claimed the reliefs in the suit on the basis of the agreement dated 31 st January, 1959. It was
    not pleaded by him that the agreement had been discovered to be void and as such he was
    entitled to get back possession of the disputed shop. It is contended that the defendant had no
    opportunity of meeting this case and as siren in the present suit the plaintiff cannot be
    allowed relief which the Courts below have given to him.

    Plaintiff:

    Relief under Section 65 of the Act has been properly given to the plaintiff.

    Judgement:
    In the present case the agreement was entered into not by the minor himself but by his
    guardian. There is no doubt that the guardian of a minor can enter into contracts on his
    behalf. There can also be no doubt that a minor can be admitted to the benefits of a
    partnership, when a partnership exists though he cannot be made a partner in a firm (vide
    Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act). The very fact that the present suit was filed to
    enforce this agreement shows that the plaintiff till the filing of this suit regarded the
    agreement in question as valid and enforceable in law. It is only when the defendant
    filed his written statement and pleaded that the agreement in question was void because
    a minor could not enter into a partnership, that the plaintiff discovered that the
    agreement was void. Though the agreement is unquestionably void, yet there are
    circumstances which show that the parties did not correctly appreciate the implications
    of the law applicable to that agreement i.e., S.30 of the IPA. On the facts and
    circumstances of the case and looking at the terms of the agreement and the conduct of
    the parties, it can be safely concluded that the agreement in the present case was
    discovered to be void when the defendant filed his written statement in the case and
    thus S.65 applies to the case.

    Appeal dismissed.

    You might also like