RATTAN CHAND HIRA CHAND versus ASKAR NAWAZ JUNG (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND ORS.

RATTAN CHAND HIRA CHAND versus ASKAR NAWAZ JUNG (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND ORS.

The contract was for the plaintiff to wield influence with government authorities to secure a share for the Nawab in his estate and was a 'carrier' contract; such contracts are opposed to public policy and unenforceable. The advance of Rs.75,000 was part of the same contract and not severable; therefore, it could not be recovered.

Parties
Appellant: Rattan Chand Hira Chand; Respondents: Askar Nawaz Jung (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 February 1991
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Disposition on Appeal From Andhra Pradesh High Court, Limited to Recovery of Rs. 75,000
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Public Policy, Champerty, Severability of Contract, Recovery of Advance, Indian Contract Act
Contract Law Public Policy Champerty Severability of Contract Recovery of Advance Indian Contract Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rattan Chand Hira Chand

Appellant

Askar Nawaz Jung (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Disposition on Appeal From Andhra Pradesh High Court, Limited to Recovery of Rs. 75,000

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contract to assist in recovering property by wielding influence and sharing proceeds is opposed to public policy
  2. 2 Whether the advance of Rs.75,000 is severable from the rest of the contract and recoverable
  3. 3 Applicability of Sections 23, 65, 69, 70, and 73(2) of the Indian Contract Act to the facts

Ratio Decidendi

The contract was for the plaintiff to wield influence with government authorities to secure a share for the Nawab in his estate and was a 'carrier' contract; such contracts are opposed to public policy and unenforceable. The advance of Rs.75,000 was part of the same contract and not severable; therefore, it could not be recovered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No recovery of Rs.75,000; agreement unenforceable for being opposed to public policy.
  • No order as to costs.