The Arguments Advanced

A. Whether there is valid contract between M/s. Senghal & Senghal

B. And Mr. Sidd malhar

The counsel on behalf of the Defendant most humbly and respectfully submits before this
honourable Court that Mr. Sidd Malhar is not competent to contract as per the provisions of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872. For an agreement to be a contract, provisions of section 10, Indian
Contract act, 18721, must be fulfilled.

For an agreement to be a contract:

- Parties should be competent to contract

- There must be free consent of parties
- There should be lawful consideration
- There should be lawful object
- It should not be expressly declared to be void

the counsel on behalf of the Defendant must humbly and respectfully submits before this hon’ble court
that Mr. Sidd is a minor, his consent can’t be considered as valid consent and the agreement is not for to

supply necessities to the minor, thus it is not a valid contract .

That Mr. Sidd Malhar is a minor.

The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits before this hon’ble court
that Mr. Sidd , being below the age of 18 years, is a minor and thus not competent to contract under the
Indian Contract act, 1872.

1
‘When agreements are contracts:
All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a
lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.
Nothing herein contained shall affect any law in force in India, and not hereby expressly repealed, by
which any contract is required to be made in writing or in presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the
registration of documents.’
Determining majority

Age of majority, according to section 11, Indian Contract Act, 1872 2 shall be determined according to law
to which the person is subject. Therefore, if there is a difference between provisions of Indian Majority
Act, 1875 and those of personal law to which the person is subject, his personal law will not prevail over
Indian Majority Act, 1875.3

In the case of Kashiba v. Shripat4 the honourable court dealt with the case of a 16 year old Hindu
widow. It was held that “her capacity to contract shall be regulated by Indian Contract Act, 1872 being
the law of her domicile and she being a minor was not liable under the bond.”5

Age of majority under the Indian majority Act, 1875.

A person who has not attained the age of majority is a minor. Section 3 of the Indian majority Act, 1875 6
provides that a person is deemed to have attained the age of majority when he completes the age of 18
years.

Thus, the counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully presents before this hon’ble
court that Mr. Sidd is below 18 years, he is a minor and thus incompetent to contract under the Indian
Contract Act, 1872.

Minor’s Competence to Contract

The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits before this hon’ble court
that a minor is incompetent to enter into a contact and any contact entered by him is void-ab-initio. 7 & 8
2
‘Who are competent to contract –
Every person is competent to contract who is of age of majority according to the law to which he is
subject, and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified form contracting by any law to which he is
subject.’
3
H.R. Saharay, Dutt on Contract, p. 231.
4
(1894) 19 Bom 697
5
Sanjiva Row’s Commentary on The Indian Contract Act, p. 649.
6
Section 3 in The Majority Act, 1875
‘ Age of majority of persons domiciled in India —
1)   Every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his completing the age of eighteen
years and not before.
2)   In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day and
he shall be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day.’
7
Mallick, Indian Contract Act, p. 411.
In the case of Latcharao v. Viswanadham8 it was held by the hon’ble court that, “as a minor cannot
enter into a contract, contract with minor is void ab inotio.”

In the case of Rajubala Dasi v. Nidhurama Pandit9, it was held by the hon’ble court that, “a contract is
specifically enforceable against a minor if he has reaped any benefit under the contract. Even though a
minor cannot enter into a contract, yet, guardian of a minor can validly enter into contract on his
behalf.”10

In the case of Ritesh Aggarwal v. SEBI 11 it was held by the hon’ble court that, “a contract must be
entered into by a person who can make a promise or make an offer. Else, the contract will be void as an
agreement which is not enforceable under law is void. Thus, minors cannot enter into a contract.” 12

For a contract to be valid, parties to contract must have a free consent. Consent is defined under section
13 of Indian Contract Act, 187213&14 as agreement between two or more people upon the same thing in the
same sense. Mutual consent is essential for every agreement and agreement is generally essential for

formation of contract. Therefore, no binding contract can be formed if there is no consensus ad idem .

Thus, it is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that as a minor is not competent to give a
valid consent, hence contract with Mr. Sidd malhar is void as it does not fulfil the conditions specified
under section 10 and 13 of the Indian Contract Ac, 1872.

8
(1903) 30 Cal. 539
9
AIR 1956 AP.
910
AIR 1956 AP.
1011
T.R. Desai, Law relating to Tenders and Government Contracts, p. 136.
1112
(2008) 8 SCC 205.
1213
Supra 5.
1314
Section 13, Indian contract Act, 1872:
‘Consent’ defined –
Two or more people are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.’