Virender Singh vs Laxmi

Narayan & Anr.

1 November, 2006

Presented by- Chandar Sasmal, Kajal Mondal, Suparna Das, Swagata Kanu & Tamojeet Das
 Facts of the Case
• Mr. Virender Singh gave a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to the accused and his father for the purpose of
securing a job for his nephew at Haryana Police.

• However, after having paid the amount, Mr. Singh did not get the job for his nephew.

• Since no job was made available, he requested the accused to return the amount of Rs. 80,000/-

• The accused on persuasion of his father’s promise, pays the amount of Rs. 80,000/- in terms of
cheque.

• The cheque was dishonoured upon presentation.

• A statutory notice was passed and since no payment was made, Mr. Singh files a case against Laxmi
Narayan & Anr.
 Provision
The section included in this case - Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
 Issues
• Was the agreement between the petitioner and the complainant for
securing a job for the complainant’s nephew in the Haryana police,
legally enforceable?

• Whether the Cheque issued by the petitioner in the favor of the

Complainant was for the discharge of any debt or liability?
 Judgement

Appeal dismissed and failed

 Reasons for Judgement
• The court observed that the money was paid by way of illegal gratification for the purposes of arranging the said
job through high profile political leaders.

• The payment of money that was made by the complainant to the accused was not lawful and, therefore, no
binding contract resulted therefrom.

• The agreement made between the parties is invalid.

• The plaintiff should have been aware of the illegality of the agreement even when it entered into it and
therefore Section 65 of the Contract Act cannot help it.

• It can be interpreted that any debt or liability arising out of a contract or promise, which is unlawful or not legally
enforceable, would not constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Act.
THANK YOU