Scribd
Upload
267 views12 pages

Lalman Shukla Vs Gauri Dutt - Case Study: Submitted To Submitted by

- Gauri Dutt's nephew absconded from his home in Kanpur and could not be found for several days. Gauri Dutt sent her servants, including Lalman Shukla, to different places to search for the boy. Lalman Shukla traced the boy to Rishikesh and brought him home. However, Gauri Dutt only paid Lalman Shukla Rs. 20 for finding the boy, despite having offered a Rs. 501 reward in a handbill. Lalman Shukla then filed a suit against Gauri Dutt seeking the reward amount.

Uploaded by

prashant dwivedi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
267 views12 pages

Lalman Shukla Vs Gauri Dutt - Case Study: Submitted To Submitted by

- Gauri Dutt's nephew absconded from his home in Kanpur and could not be found for several days. Gauri Dutt sent her servants, including Lalman Shukla, to different places to search for the boy. Lalman Shukla traced the boy to Rishikesh and brought him home. However, Gauri Dutt only paid Lalman Shukla Rs. 20 for finding the boy, despite having offered a Rs. 501 reward in a handbill. Lalman Shukla then filed a suit against Gauri Dutt seeking the reward amount.

Uploaded by

prashant dwivedi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 12

 

Lalman Shukla vs Gauri Dutt - Case


study
Submitted to 
Reenu mam
Submitted by 
Piyush Sharma
Prashant Dwivedi
Prajjwal Gupta
Pradyumn Mishra
Anisha
Pragati srivastava
The nephew of one Gauri Dutt absconded from
his home in Kanpur.

For several days, no trace of him could be found.

SUMMARY  :-
Gauri Dutt gave money to her servants for
railway fares and other expenses, and sent them
to different places in search of the boy.
One of the servants, Lalman Shukla, the
munim(accountant) in Gauri Dutt’s firm, was
sent to Haridwar.
Later, after the servants had left, Gauri Dutt issued handbills
offering a reward of RS.501 to anyone who might find the boy. 

She sent some handbills to Lalman Shukla also, in Haridwar.


Lalman traced the boy up to Rishikesh and found him there. The
boy was brought home. 

Gauri Dutt gave Lalman Shukla Rs.20 for having found the boy.
Lalman must have been upset with the denial of the promised
amount of Rs.501. Next, we learn that Lalman ceased to be in
the employment of Gauri Dutt and filed a suit for the recovery
of RS.501, the amount promised in the handbill. 
JUDGEMENT

  Judgement on this case was made by Allahabad High Court in the year
1913. 
 The trial court dismissed the suit on the basis that:- 
i. that the offer of reward was announced after the plaintiff had left; and 
ii. there was no subsequent promise to pay the reward. 
 In revision, the Allahabad High Court, affirmed (ii) but rejected (i). 
The Court held: Being under that obligation which he had incurred
before the reward in question was offered, he cannot, in my
opinion, claim the reward. 
There was already a subsisting obligation and therefore the
performance of the act cannot be regarded as consideration for the
defendant’s promise. 
 Thus, the judgement was made in favour of the defendant Mrs.
Gauri Dutt and the plaintiff Mr. Lalman Shukla lost any rights to the
reward because: 
i. He was unaware of the offer at the time, thus he had never
accepted the offer at all
 ii. He had a separate prior commitment made with the defendant to
carry out the task, although it was not necessarily under his job
scope. However, this prior agreement did not mention any benefits
that the plaintiff would receive upon successfully finishing this task.
This agreement is in direct conflict to plaintiff's claim made later,
hence precedence should be given to terms stated in prior
agreement.
 As per Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 2(a): When one person signifies to another his/her
willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view
LEGAL to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence,
he/she is said to make a proposal. 
CONCEPTS  Section 2(h): An agreement enforceable by law is a contract. 
Offer + Acceptance = Agreement 
Agreement + Enforceable by Law = Contract
• ACT - Under Section 2(a) PROPOSAL CASE - GAURI
DUTT proposed a reward of Rs.501 to whomsoever
found and returned with her nephew.
•  However, there was already a subsisting obligation
RELATIONSHIP on the plaintiff's side prior to this proposal and
BETWEEN THE therefore the performance of the act cannot be
regarded as consideration for the defendant’s
ACT AND THE promise. 

CASE  •  ACT - Under Section 2(h) CONTRACT CASE - Since


LALMAN SHUKLA was unaware of the offer
proposed by GAURI DUTT, there can be no
acceptance of the offer. Hence, there is a lack of
establishment of any agreement enforceable by law.
KEY FACTORS & CONCLUSION /KEY FACTORS FOR INFERENCE AND
ANALYSIS :-

In the case elaborated


earlier, it reinforces the
Shukla vs Gauri Dutt is a
concept of awareness of
landmark case related to
offer and then the
the Acceptance of a
subsequent acceptance of
Contract. 
it for an agreement to
form. 
Lack of awareness of the offer automatically makes an entity ineligible to contemplate acceptance of
the offer. Hence, any benefits arising out of the offer are not necessarily applicable to such unaware
entities. 

Similarly, if commitments/agreement made prior to contract are in conflict(or are varying) with one
another, precedence goes to obligations/duty jointly agreed by both parties at time of agreement.
Thus, it is necessary to ensure that prior agreements made jointly by both parties are not invalidated by
current contract, unless and until it is approved by both the stakeholders in concern.
THANK YOU 

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy