Citation: (1878) ILR 2 Bom 362 (Indian Kanoon)
Court: Bombay High Court (Indian Kanoon)
Date: 20 November 1877 (SooperKanoon)
Judge: Michael Westropp, C.J., and Melvill, J. (SooperKanoon)
Facts of the Case
-
The plaintiff, Ramchandra Chintaman, was an advocate (pleader) and was retained by the defendants (Kalu Raju & Another) under a vakalatnama—a power of attorney given to a pleader to act in court on behalf of clients. (Indian Kanoon)
-
After two months of accepting the vakalatnama, the parties entered into a further agreement dated 16 October (1875) where the defendants promised to pay Ramchandra an additional sum of Rs. 61 in addition to his ordinary fee. This was contingent upon some performance or service beyond what was already required under the vakalatnama. (Indian Kanoon)
-
Ramchandra sued to enforce this additional promise. (Indian Kanoon)
Legal Issues
-
Whether the agreement (promise of additional payment) was supported by fresh consideration beyond the obligations already imposed by the vakalatnama.
-
Whether the promise without such fresh consideration is enforceable under contract law (i.e., whether it is a nudum pactum – a bare promise).
Judgment of the Court
-
The Court held that the agreement was executed without consideration, and hence it was a nudum pactum, which makes it legally unsustainable. (Indian Kanoon)
-
The reasoning was that once Ramchandra accepted the vakalatnama, he was already under obligation to perform his duties as a pleader (i.e. to render his “best services”) in the suit no. 723 of 1875. That duty continued—it did not require extra consideration for the new promise. (Indian Kanoon)
-
Therefore, since no fresh consideration flowed from the plaintiff for the additional promise, the promise was void. The suit to enforce payment of Rs. 61 was dismissed with costs. (Indian Kanoon)
Ratio Decidendi
-
A promise that merely restates or duplicates an existing obligation (one already binding under a prior agreement) does not amount to valid consideration.
-
Contract law requires that for a promise to be enforceable, there must be something new or additional given by the promisee, i.e. fresh consideration.
-
If no fresh consideration is present, the promise is a nudum pactum and cannot be enforced.
Legal Significance
-
This case is often cited in Indian contract law in discussions of consideration—what counts as valid consideration vs what doesn’t.
-
Reinforces the principle that pre-existing duties (such as those under a vakalatnama) cannot be used as consideration for a new promise unless something extra is done.
-
Helps in understanding how Indian courts treat agreements built upon existing obligations.
Conclusion
Ramchandra Chintaman vs. Kalu Raju & Anr. is a foundational case in contract law emphasizing that promises made without new consideration (i.e. when a previous duty already exists) are legally unenforceable. It underscores the necessity of fresh consideration for the enforceability of subsequent promises over and above pre-existing obligations.