Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose Case





About The Case


Mohori Bibee V/S Dharmodas Ghose is a case that covers the ambit of minors agreement. This case basically deals with a minor's contract or a contract with a minor. In India, an agreement or a contract with a minor ( a person who is below the age of 18 yrs. or any person who has not completed 18 yrs. to 21 yrs.), is said to be void and incapable of being enforced. Whenever the question of performance arises in relation to this agreement, it is left entirely to the court's discretion to decide whether the minor should be held bound by its terms or not.

Mohori Bibee V/S Dharmodas Ghose case is an important judicial treatise in India. It covers the ambit of minors’ agreement. This case basically deals with a minor's contract or a contract with a minor. In India, an agreement or a contract with a minor ( a person who is below the age of 18 yrs. or any person who has not completed 18 yrs.) can be either verbal or written agreement and it is regarded that such person will have limited understanding of what they are doing at the time of entering into this agreement. The position in law if the agreement makes no difference to the structure, looking at giving justice to the minor who may be inadvertently taken advantage of by the other party and should not suffer from such an unfortunate situation, individuals are allowed to make an arrangement with a minor and then seek implementation of that earlier arrangement after he /she attains majority age (18 yrs).

Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose 1903 (Arguments)

While canceling the mortgage deed, the court should have forced the minor to pay the money (Rs. 10,500) under the deed Return it. In favor of this argument, he referred to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 under which the Court has the power to pass such an order.

Under Sections 64 and 65 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, the return of the money received under the deed canceled may be compelled.

According to the principle of 'Estoppel', the minor, who called himself a minor, cannot now be allowed to argue that he was a minor while contracting.

The Contract made by the minor is null and voidable

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

M Nagaraj vs Union of India judgement

Image
Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 212 which upheld the constitutional amendments which inserted Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B), the Court had held that it is not mandatory for the State to make reservations for SC/ST in a matter of promotions. What Was Held in M Nagaraj vs UOI It also held that the Nagaraj judgment specified that the government must provide quantifiable data as regards backwardness is illegal and uncalled for due to the reason that the list only, after consideration by the President of India under arts. 341 and 342 are published and constitute SCs and STs. This case comment attempts to analyse the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M. Nagaraj v. Union of India reported in AIR 2007 SC 71, which dealt with a pertinent and extremely contentious issue of providing reservation in promotions and examines the same in the light of various principles pertaining to Constitutional law, namely right to equality and fairness, equa...
Read more

Justice ks Puttaswamy vs Union of India Citation

Image
  CASE NAME: K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD) V. UNION OF INDIA (AADHAAR JUDGEMENT) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 494 OF 2012. PETITIONER NAME : K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD). RESPONDENT NAME : UNION OF INDIA. DECIDED ON : 24TH AUGUST 2017. CITATION : 2017 10 S.C.C. 1. This article discusses Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors, which is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that constitutes the terrain for understanding the inter-relationship between the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution and privacy. Article 14 of the Constitution of India In November 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously decided that the right to privacy is a fundamental right of every person in the country under the Indian Constitution under Articles 14, 19, and 21. The court drew on past judgments, where the judiciary had carved out a limited right to privacy from within other rights like personal liberty (Article 21) and freedom of speech and expression (...
Read more

Shayara Bano vs Union Of India Case

Image
  On 22 August 2017, the Supreme Court took a landmark decision on the constitutional validity of “Talaq-e-Biddat” popularly known as “ Triple Talaq ” which is one of the three males initiated divorce in the Muslim community, the other two being “Talaq has an” and “Talaq hasan”. As the name suggests in this form of divorce, where a Muslim man can instantly divorce his wife after repeating the word “talaq” in one sitting, without any state intervention. Here the means of communication could be in any form i.e written, oral, or even electronic, which further enhances a woman’s vulnerability in this arbitrary and unilateral divorce1. This controversial custom given that it is an intersection between gender identity and community has unsurprisingly left Muslim women prone to abuse and in a morbid state, especially given the socio-economic aspect where most of the women are financially dependent on their spouse and the added fear of this whimsical divorce leaves many cases of marital ab...
Read more