CASES – VOIDABLE CONTRACTS

CASE NAME CITATION JUDGEMENT

State of Kerala v. M.A. (2007) 10 SCC 195 In support of the appeal learned
Mathai counsel for the appellant
submitted that the letters on
which reliance had been placed
show that the contractor was not
doing the work within stipulated
period and had been asked for to
apply for extension. The basic
stand of the plaintiff-respondent
was that the extensions had
been sought for and
supplemental agreements were
executed not on the free will and
free consent of the plaintiff but it
was due to circumstances which
prevailed at that time which
necessitated the plaintiff to
agree to the commands of the
defendants. To put it differently,
as noted above, the plaintiff had
contented that it was due to
coercion that these
supplemental agreements were
executed. The trial court
concluded that on the threat of
forfeiture, reallocation and
rearrangement at the cost of the
plaintiff the execution of
supplemental agreement was
done. It is pointed out that there
was no clause for any escalation.
It was wrongly assumed by the
trial court that the supplemental
agreements and declarations
made by the plaintiff were not
binding on him as it was not
obtained by free consent and
free will and in the normal
course of events.
 Babu Ram v. Indra Pal (1998) 6 SCC 358  We have already held under
Singh Point 1 that the court order and
the sale deed were not the result
 of any fresh or new agreement
between the Official Receiver
and the defendant at or before
the date of sale on 15-7-1964.
We have also held that there was
no novation within Section 62 of
the Contract Act. If that be so, it
is clear that the agreement for
reconveyance contained in the
original contract dated 19-11-
1963 cannot be said to have
been superseded. The
defendant, having got the sale
deed only upon implementation
of the obligation covered by the
agreement of sale dated 19-11-
1963 cannot approbate and
reprobate and contend that the
other part of the agreement
dated 19-11-1963 regarding
reconveyance need not be
implemented. It is true that it is
customary to include a recital
regarding the agreement of
reconveyance in the sale deed
itself. But where, as here, there
was an agreement preceding the
sale deed and that agreement
contained such a clause, and a
sale deed was executed
consequent thereto, the absence
of a reference to the agreement
of reconveyance in the sale deed
would not, in our opinion, lead to
the inference that the said right
was given up by the plaintiff.
Unless there is a detailed plea
and also evidence that before
execution of the sale deed there
was novation and the parties
expressly agreed to give a go-by
to the agreement of
reconveyance, no inference
could be drawn that the
agreement of reconveyance
contained in the agreement of
sale dated 19-11-1963 which
 preceded the sale deed was
given a go-by.
U.P. Coop. Cane Unions (2004) 5 SCC 430  As discussed earlier, the
Federations v. West U.P. reservation or assignment of
Sugar Mills Assn area is made for the benefit of a
sugar factory. The agreements
executed by the cane-growers or
cane-growers' cooperative
society in favour of occupier of a
factory are also for the benefit of
the sugar factory as by such
agreements it gets an assurance
of a continuous supply of freshly
harvested sugarcane on the days
indicated in the requisition slips
issued by it so that there may not
be any problem in getting
optimum quantity of raw
material throughout the crushing
season. In absence of the
agreements the sugar factory will
also be a loser as it may face
great problem in getting the
supply of sugarcane according to
its requirement. The occupiers of
the factory are themselves keen
on execution of the agreements
but their only objection is to the
mention of State-advised price.
The agreement is one composite
transaction and it is not open to
them to contend that the terms
thereof which are to their
advantage should be enforced
but the term relating to price
notified by the State
Government should not be
enforced as their consent in that
regard was not a voluntary act.
In our opinion, having regard to
the advantages derived by the
sugar factories, they are fully
bound by the agreement
wherein the State-advised price
may be mentioned and it is not
open to them to assail the clause
relating to price of the sugarcane
 on the ground that their consent
was not voluntary or was
obtained under some kind of
duress.
Mahableshvar Krishnappa  1913 SCC OnLine Bom 41 :  In the present case both the
Versus ILR (1914) 38 Bom 94 : AIR Courts have found that
1914 Bom 300 Manjappa had exercised various
Ramchandra Mangesh Kulkarni  acts of guardianship for ten
years. In fact the property in
dispute was purchased by
Manjappa on behalf of the
minors. The minors obtained title
to the property by Manjappa's
act. Subsequently Manjappa sold
the property for consideration.
The plaintiffs, therefore,
cannot approbate and reprobate.
They cannot affirm the purchase
by Manjappa and repudiate the
sale by him.