COERCION AND CASE COMMENTARY

SUB TOPIC- COERCION AND CASE COMMENT

ON AMIRAJU v. SESHAMA

CONTRACTS PROJECT

PRESENTED BY
ABHISHEK KANSAL
ROLL NO.- 15030
GROUP NO.-7

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PUNJAB

 INTRODUCTION
PROPOSAL

CONSIDERATION

ACCEPTANCE

• Section 10 of the INDIAN CONTARCT ACT (VALID CONTARCT)

• Consent is said to be free if not caused by:

COERCION UNDUE INFLUENCE

 COERCION
Chuni Lal v. Maula Baksh
NEED NOT FLOW FROM A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT

Sanaullah v. Kalimullah
ACT FORBIDDEN BY THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

UNLAWFUL DETAINING OF PROPERTYBengal Stone Co. Ltd v.

Joseph Hyam

TO THE PREJUDICE OF ANY PERSON Amiraju v. Seshama

CAUSING ANY PERSON TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT

 AMIRAJU v. SESHAMA
• FACTS:
• Husbands threats to commit suicide to his wife.
• Forced wife and son to execute a release.
• In the favour of his brother and father.
• Which she had sold her father’s vendor.
• BACKGROUND
– The lower court decided it on the basis of
• Prejudice of any person.
• In this Case the wife and son.
• Applied Section 15 of Indian Contract Act.
• APPEAL IN THE HIGHER COURT

– Justice Moore
• Abetment of Suicide
• Not just because of prejudice
• Not Undue- Influence

– Chief Justice John Wallis

• Wilful Homicide as felony: Suicide or Killing Other man
• Falls under the ambit of Section 299 I.P.C.
• Abetment of Suicide

– Justice Oldfield (Dissenting Opinion)

• Hard to argue general policy is in question.
• Difference between attempt to commit and commit
• Threat to attempt to commit is self contradictory.
 DIFFERENCE BETWEN COERCION AND
UNDUE INFLUENCE
COERCION UNDUE INFLUENCE
• Coercion exists when there is: • Undue Influence may also exist:
– Physical Compulsion – Without violence
– Threat – Without threats
– Any Act forbidden by I.P.C

• Against Property and Man • Against Man

• May flow from third party • Involves parties only

THANK YOU