The concept of 'Antecedent Debt' in Indian Contract Law refers to a debt that was already due and payable by a party to the other party before the contract was entered into. This concept was first described in the case of Brij Narayan Rai v. Mangal Prasad (AIR 1924 PC 50), which is a landmark case in the Indian Contract Law. In this case, the plaintiff had advanced a loan to the defendant, and the defendant executed a mortgage deed in favor of the plaintiff to secure the loan. Later, the defendant entered into an agreement with a third party to sell the mortgaged property without the consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract. The defendant argued that the contract was void because there was no consideration for it. However, the court held that the plaintiff had already advanced a loan to the defendant before the contract was entered into, and the mortgage deed was executed to secure the antecedent debt. Therefore, the court held that the contract was enforceable, and the plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought. This case established the principle that a promise to pay an antecedent debt is a valid consideration for a contract. The landmark judgement Pannalal v/s Narayan (1952) held that a debtor's liability to pay a time-barred debt could be revived if the creditor makes an express promise to forgo the limitation period and the debtor acknowledges the debt and promises to pay it. This principle is known as the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel or Promissory Estoppel on the basis of past consideration. This case is significant in the Indian Contract Act as it introduced the concept of promissory estoppel in India. The landmark judgement Sitaram v/s Harihar (1933) held that a minor's agreement is void ab initio, which means it is void from the beginning and has no legal effect.
'Amit' and 'Bikash' embarked on a business venture with initial investments of Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 25,000, respectively. After 3 months, 'Chims' entered ...
In a business, A invested Rs. 1600 more than that by B. After 7 months, A left the business. If at the end of the year, profit earned by B is equal to t...
profit would be used to fund a community project, and the remaining profit would be distributed according to their investment proportions. If the profit...
‘A’ invested Rs. 3600 for ‘x’ months while ‘B’ invested Rs. 600 less amount than ‘A’ for (x + 2) months....
Nina, Omar, and Paula invest in the business in the ratios of 9:5:p, respectively, and their time periods are 2 months, 3 months, and 4 months, respecti...
In a joint business venture, 'A' contributes Rs. 2400, which is 25% less than 'B’s investment. While 'A's investment lasts for 8 months, 'B' only inve...
M and N started a business by investing Rs.5000 and Rs.6000 respectively. After 7 months, M and N increased their investments by 60% and Rs.2100 respect...
‘A’ and ‘B’ invested Rs. 4600 and Rs. 2800, respectively in a business, together. After 6 months, ‘A’ withdrew 25% of his initial investment...
P started a business investing Rs.10000. After 5 months, Q joined her with the capital of Rs.20000. After another 3 months, R joined them with the capit...
Together, 'P' and 'Q' invested Rs. 16,000 and Rs. 24,000 to launch their firm. After 'Q' departed after four months, 'R' joined 'P' by contributing Rs. ...