The Indian Contract Act and Specific Relief Act give many remedies for breach of contract. One such remedy is 'Quantum Meruit'. This Latin phrase means 'as much as he deserved'[1]. This remedy aims at providing the plaintiff their due for the services they have rendered. This is an equitable remedy which aims to restore and compensate the plaintiff for providing her services in the case when no price has been agreed upon.

Another similar concept is that of 'Quantum Valebant' which literally means 'as much as they were worth'[2] this is a remedy similar to Quantum Meruit; it aims at providing the plaintiff a reasonable price for the goods they have sold. This is the only difference between the two, while Quantum Meruit is a remedy for providing the reasonable value of services rendered by the plaintiff, Quantum Valebant is for the goods sold or delivered.

According to Anson's Law of Contracts:

"These restitutionary remedies may be available not only to an innocent party but also, in certain situations, to a contract-breaker. These remedies may also be available in respect of money paid or non-monetary benefits rendered under other ineffective agreements including those that are void, tainted by illegality, discharged for frustration, or too uncertain to amount to contracts�"[3]

This doctrine is believed to be developed in the seventeenth century by the Court of Chancery in England. The inflexibility and arduous nature of the Common Law courts drove more and more people to the Court of Chancery as it was flexible in its approach and it ensured an 'equitable' remedy to the aggrieved. They developed the principle of Quantum Meruit along with other equitable principles.

The earliest reported cases under this doctrine concerned people who were engaged in the so-called trades of common-calling, for example, tailors, innkeepers, etc. The principle evolved over time as more service industries came up, and has now come into wide-spread use.

In India, a claim under Quantum Meruit is allowed by section 70 of the Indian Contract Act that says that when a person 'lawfully' does anything for someone and does so 'non-gratuitously', and the latter enjoys the benefit of it, he (the latter) is bound to compensate the former. This section of the Indian Contract Act falls under Chapter V titled 'Of Certain Relations Resembling Those Created by Contract'.

This means that the principal deals with cases wherein a contract is not explicitly made rather when there is a 'Quasi-Contract'. If there was no contract in place or if there was one, the price of rendering the services was not already agreed upon, the court can compensate the aggrieved party and compensate for the lawful services they have rendered.

This principle has evolved in India by through judicial interpretations in different cases. Cases like State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd.[4], Alopi Parshad & Sons Ltd. v. The Union of India[5] and Puran Lal Sah v. State Of U.P[6] are a few among many others that clarify the principle of Quantum Meruit and throw some light upon how this principle has to be applied in different contexts.

This is a useful remedy in situations when a person has been unjustly benefited by the acts of the plaintiff. This remedy can ensure justice and fairness in situations which do not have an adequate legal remedy because there are limitations to every law.

Quantum Meruit: Meaning

When a Contract is breached, one can file a suit and claim compensation for the same but this is only possible when we are able to tick mark all the essentials that make up a valid contract. Things like free consent, lawful object and consideration are some of these essentials without which a contract can't be enforced in the court. But in some situations, although a valid contract did not exist, one party may face some loss. To ensure justice and equity, the common law has some 'equitable remedies' which are given by the courts when either a legal remedy is unavailable or if available, is inadequate.

One such remedy is based on the principle of Quantum Meruit. The term literally means as much as one deserves. This is a restitutionary award which is used to pay to the aggrieved party their due for rendering their services. In the words of Judy B. Sloan, "It is very much an alternative "shadow" system. A law student who first encounters it in Contracts I often feels like the biology student who is told that, in addition to a circulatory system, there is also a lymphatic system hidden within the circulatory system."[7]

In a claim of quantum meruit, the plaintiff does not seek a precise sum of money, nor a sum representing the general damages incurred by the plaintiff as a consequence of some unjust act on the part of the defendant, but a sum which will provide the plaintiff, the value of what the plaintiff has done for the defendant, usually calculated in terms of the market price or value of those services.[8]

History of the principle
In the thirteenth century, there existed a writ of 'trespass'. It can be called a rough equivalent of modern day tort. Through this writ a defendant was called to come and tell why he committed wrong. But this general trespass proved insufficient due to rigid requisites and so, 'trespass on case' developed. This helped in including cases with similar factual circumstances to be brought to action.

The trespass on case established some idea of a duty to be present that had been breached. Initially, this duty was based on the law, customs or the relationship between the parties but over the course of time, this duty came from 'assumpsit' which meant that a person had assumed responsibility to do something for someone else and had done that badly. In this regard there are two cases which help illustrate.

In the Humber Ferryman Case[9], the plaintiff had given his mare to the defendant to be taken across a river the defendant's ferry. But the defendant overloaded the boat so much that it overturned and plaintiff's mare drowned. Going by the normal procedure, it was merely a case of trespass but the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had assumed responsibility for damage. Similarly, in Waldon v Marshal[10], the plaintiff had given the horse to the defendant to cure it of its ailments but unfortunately, the horse died.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent and as a result of this the horse had died. The death of the horse (chattel of the plaintiff) was the basis for constituting a writ of trespass but the undertaking by the defendant formed the assumpsit part here.

These cases dealt with 'misfeasance' that is when someone performed an action in a wrong manner. In cases of 'nonfeasance' the common law courts were skeptic to allow the writ of trespass because these cases were thought to be under covenant only. Hence, for many years, a person did not have any remedy for breach of promises that were made to do something later on in the future.

With the passage of time, the courts felt the need to expand their jurisdiction in the matters of nonfeasance. Thus, they tried to expand assumpsit to include nonfeasance and thus, inflicted a duty on the people who were engaged in common businesses such as tailors, innkeepers, barbers, etc. An action could be brought against these persons if it was proved that they have deceived the plaintiff by either rendering their services unskillfully or not performing what was asked of them. This helped include nonfeasance in the remedy of assumpsit but this was still based on the requirement of deceit, i.e. deceit had to be present for the action to succeed.

In yet another attempt to expand their jurisdiction, the common law courts tried to enforce debts wherein there had been a promise to pay, through assumpsit. This came to be known as Indebitatus Assumpsit. This originated around the sixteenth century. In 1532, in Pickering v Thoroughgood[11], the court held that in such cases the plaintiff can elect to choose between indebitatus assumpsit and debt. During the course of the century, indebitatus assumpsit was used extensively. Courts even allowed this remedy where there was no promise to pay. But, the upper courts would reverse such decisions because they feared that if this remedy was used so much, it would negate the very reason for the existence of the writ of debt.

This stance of the courts changed in 1602 with Slade's Case[12]. Slade's Case allowed an action of indebitatus assumpsit for cases wherein there was not a promise to pay the debt. The court was of the opinion that whenever there is a debt, a promise to repay the debt is implied. Because this remedy was comparatively easier than debt, it soon gained popularity. But not all problems were solved by this remedy.

Although this remedy assumed an implied promise to pay the debt, it still required to prove the existence of the actual debt to be able to claim remedy. At this point, the doctrine of Quantum Meruit began to come in picture. After Slade's case, courts began assuming an undertaking or promise in the circumstances where they weren't explicitly mentioned. This concept was first used in cases concerning trades of common-calling like innkeepers, tailors, etc.

The court assumed that they have some obligation to serve their customers and the customers on their part had the duty to pay for their goods and services. In Warbrook v Griffin[13], 1609, an innkeeper was allowed to imply a promise of the guest to repay the reasonable amount of the services that had been provided to him. Many other cases followed this and circumstances where there is no agreement as to what would be the compensation started getting redressed through assumpsit. In the late seventeenth century, the courts eased the need of proof of debt for indebitatus assumpsit and now, actions in quantum meruit could also be brought under it.

Following Slade's Case, Quantum Meruit could also brought in the contracts implied in law (quasi-contracts). Thus, in Bonnel v Foulk[14], 1657, the court allowed the plaintiff to recover the money that he had mistakenly paid to the defendant through an action of indebitatus assumpsit.

The problem with these kinds of transactions was that they were frequently confused with contracts implied in fact. Lord Mansfield explained these new developments in terms of their restitutionary nature and found a basis for implied-in-law contracts in Roman law: "If the defendant be under an obligation, from the ties of natural justice, to refund; the law implies a debt, and gives this action, founded in the equity of the plaintiff's case, as it were upon a contract ('quasi ex contractu,' as the Roman law expresses it).[15]

Contractual Quantum Meruit

A quantum meruit claim can be contractual[16] as well as restitutionary [17]. We can understand the distinction between these connotations by looking at the following foreign cases:

In William Lacey (Hounslow) Ltd v. Davis[18], the plaintiffs rendered services to the defendant at the latter's request in anticipation of a building contract that failed to materialize. When the plaintiffs sued for payment for the services, the defendant argued that it was the common expectation of the parties that a contract would be entered into between them and that the plaintiffs' services would be rewarded by the profits of the contract.

The defendant denied that in the circumstances there was any implied promise to pay for the services in issue. The defendant's argument was that any quantum meruit claim was necessarily contractual, and any such claim was negated by the fact that the parties had an express contract in mind thereby making it impossible to imply any other, contradictory contract.

This argument was rejected. Instead the court explained that quantum meruit, though contractual in origin, had given rise to another form of action founded upon what was known, in 1957 when the case was being determined, as quasi contract. In such quasi-contractual instances of the application of quantum meruit the court looked at the facts and ascertained from them whether or not a promise to pay should be implied, irrespective of the actual views or intentions of the parties at the time when the work was done and the services rendered.[19]

The case of Burns Fry Ltd. v. Khurana[20] involved both contractual and restitutionary claims by the plaintiffs based upon their acts as agents for the defendant in the sale of a business. An agreed fee was payable upon the closing of the transaction. After the plaintiffs had found a purchaser willing to pay approximately the price asked for the business by the defendant, the latter changed his mind and decided not to sell. Krever J. rejected both claims. The defendant had acted in good faith and was not in breach of any implied term of the contract.[21]

Nor was the alternative of restitution, i.e. quasi-contract, applicable. The nature of the contract was such that the plaintiffs had taken the risk of not being paid if there was no sale and no substantial benefit had been acquired by the plaintiff.[22]

It can be seen from these cases that the basis on which a claim of quantum meruit can be brought up and can get success is different when it is contractual and different when it is restitutionary.

The Indian Contract Act and Quantum Meruit

The Indian Contract Act has two sections which are usually used to bring about an action based on Quantum Meruit. Sections 65 and 70 have been used to enforce claims of quantum meruit.

Section 65
This section deals with the "Obligation of person who has received advantage under void agreement, or contract that has become void". It says that any person who has received benefit from an agreement that was void or a contract that has become void is bound to restore it back or pay the compensation to the person from whom such benefit was received. Quantum Meruit is granted under this section on the basis of the principle of restitution of giving relief. According to Pollock and Mulla, "when the contract is invalid under a statute, the refund of benefit can be claimed either under section 65 or on the principle of Quantum Meruit."

Let us understand this section with an example, if A sells his cell phone to B and takes money from him not knowing that the phone has been stolen, he will have to return the money back to B. if he doesn't he can be sued for claims of Quantum Meruit.

"The Supreme Court observed in State of Madras v Gannon Dunkerley & Co. that a claim for quantum meruit is a claim for damages of a breach of contract."[23] In other subsequent cases, the Supreme Court laid down requirements for this remedy. In Puran Lal Shah v State of U.P.[24] the court observed, "The original contract must be so discharged by the opposite party that the plaintiff is entitled to treat himself as free from the obligation of further performance and he must have elected to do so.

The remedy is not available to the party who breaks the contract even though he might have partly performed it. The remedy is restitutory; it is a recompense for the value of the work done by the plaintiff in order to restore him to the position which he would have been in if the contract had never been entered into. In this respect it is different from a claim for damages which is a compensatory remedy.

The court accordingly did not allow the claim of a contractor for extra payment on the ground that he had to procure the raw material from a longer distance than that represented in the tender documents"[25]

In Indu Mehta v State of Uttar Pradesh[26] it was held that the amount to be given can be decided based on the price agreed. It may also be calculated on the basis of the prevailing market rate if a price hasn't been agreed upon.[27]

Section 70
This section lays down the "Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act." To be very general, a gratuitous act is done for free that is the person doing such an act doesn't expect anything in return. On the other hand a non-gratuitous act is the opposite. In such matters the person doesn't intend to do the act for free. A person who has benefitted from a non-gratuitous act has received unjust benefit on the stake of the person who had done the no-gratuitous act. Hence, the court seeks to restore the person of whatever she has given.

This section binds the person who has been unjustly benefitted to repay the plaintiff for the services or goods he has supplied. To understand this section let us take an example, A had to do research for B for Rs. 1000 and send him the research paper over email. He accidently sends it to C who uses A's research and benefits from it. Now, he will have to compensate A because he was unjustly benefitted from A's services. If he doesn't, a claim of quantum meruit can be brought against him.

If in the contract, no price has been agreed upon, then the person who has been unjustly benefitted has to compensate the reasonable sum for the services rendered and goods delivered. But if there wasn't a contract in place, the person will have to again pay a reasonable price for the services and goods from which he has benefitted. In Krishna Menon v Cochin Devaswom Board [28] it was held that "where the work under the contract was executed in a defective manner, the breach going to the root of the contract, but the defective work was enjoyed without protest, the contractor was entitled to payment for the defective work on the principles of quantum meruit."[29]

In some cases it was held that "when a contractor is to handle more cargo than what was given in the contract and he incurs additional expenses to handle it, he was entitled to payment for the additional expenses on the similar principles."[30]

Evolution of the principle through Judicial Interpretations
In this part, we will try to understand the how this principle has evolved in India through the years and how have the courts interpreted it in different cases. This will help us decide the scope of Quantum Meruit in India.

Moselle Solomon v Martin & Co.[31]
Facts: the company Martin & Co had received an order for steel work by Mr. Solomon. They sued Mr. Solomon for the price of the goods and brought a decree against him which wasn't executed. Hence, they discovered that Mr. Solomon was the trustee of half the shares and the other half was owned by his daughter Miss Moselle Solomon. The company sued Mr. Solomon as well as his daughter. They said that Mr. Solomon acted as an agent for his daughter.

Decision: the two judges Lord William J. and Jack J had a split verdict. Lord William observed that "the remedy provided by Section 70 is not dependent upon the law relating to the liabilities of principal and agent. It is an independent remedy, which is based upon a different cause of action, namely, upon whether a person has lawfully done anything for another or has delivered anything to him not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person has enjoyed the benefit thereof. If so, he must either make compensation in respect of, or restore the thing so done or delivered."[32]

On the other hand Lord Jack held that "where there is an express contract, Section 70 has no application, as shown by the heading of Chapter V of the Act, in which the section finds a place."[33]

This judgment observed that this remedy can be used only when an express contract is not in place, that is, it can be availed in cases of quasi-contracts. This seems a bit problematic as there maybe situations when there does exist an express contract but no price or damages could have been agreed upon in the contract for when there is a breach.

Alopi Parshad and Sons Ltd. v Union of India[34]
Facts: Alopi Prashad and Sons had entered into a contract with the Government of India to deliver ghee to the Army Officers at an agreed price. During the World War II the contract was mutually changed and the price was reduced. After some time the company demanded an increase in the prices. The government assured them that this demand will be entertained. On this assurance they continued to supply the ghee. But the assurance was never realized.

Decision: in this case the court held that "Compensation under quantum meruit is awarded for work done or services rendered, when the price thereof is not fixed by a contract. For work done or services rendered pursuant to the terms of a contract, compensation quantum meruit cannot be awarded where the contract provides for the consideration payable in that behalf. Quantum meruit is but reasonable compensation awarded on implication of a contract to remunerate, and an express stipulation governing the relations between the parties under a contract, cannot be displaced by assuming that the stipulation is not reasonable."[35]

In this case, the court was right in denying the claim because, when there already exists a contract which lays down the amount to be paid, why a claim of quantum meruit should be allowed. If such claims are allowed, it would render the terms of the contract meaningless.

Mulamchand v State of M.P.[36]
Facts: the plaintiff had bought the rights to procure forest produce like lac, tendu leaves, etc. from the Malguzari jungles of Madhya Pradesh. These rights were purchased by the plaintiff before this forest area came under the ambit of the state government. After this, it was alleged that the deputy commissioner had taken charge of the entire Malguzari area and had prevented the appellant to enjoy the rights he had acquired. He auctioned the forest produce which was covered under the right of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff could only procure tendu leaves that too after depositing an additional sum. The plaintiff did deposit the sum to save them from being sold off by the deputy commissioner. The plaintiff demanded refund of this money as well as the money he had given earlier to purchase the right for the other forest produce.

Decision: the court inter-alia held that, "if a claim for compensation is made by one person against another under Section 70, it cannot be on the basis of any subsisting contract between the parties but on a different kind of obligation."

The court basically observed that the claims under section 70 cannot be made when there is an existing enforceable contract between the parties. It can be claimed in cases of a quasi-contract.

Puran Lal Sah v State Of U.P. [37]
Facts: the plaintiff had been given the work of constructing a road in Nainital. The contract said that the person was to construct the road at a rate less than what was stipulated in a schedule issued by the government. But rates in the schedule were based on the assumption of the availability of stone near construction sites and in this case there was no stone available. So, the plaintiff had to get stone from great distance. He alleged that he was given assurance by the P.W.D. authorities that he'll get the money for the extra work done. Also, while doing the work, there was a large rock in between which was removed. The plaintiff claimed compensation for the extra work done but was not given so by the authorities.

Decision: In this case the court shed light upon a few things regarding this principle. First, it said that for a quantum meruit claim to succeed, it has to be brought by the party who is not in default. The party that has broken the contract cannot get the benefit of this claim. Also, the court explained the difference between a claim for damages and a claim of quantum meruit. A claim for damages seeks to put the plaintiff in a post-performance position that is in such a position that the contract has been executed. While a claim for quantum meruit is a claim that seeks to restore the position of the plaintiff. It is as if the contract never existed.

These interpretations by the court have helped in getting to understand this principle in itself and have given new facets to it. This has made it easy to understand and clarified the confusion between damages and a claim of restitution in Quantum Meruit.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited v Tata Communications[38] (the MTNL case)
This is one of the newer cases which deal with an important aspect of Quantum Meruit. In this case, the issue before the court was that of

Facts: there was a contract between the two parties of a purchase order. The contract stipulated an amount that was to be given in case of a breach of the contract. TATA failed to perform its part of the contract and thus, MTNL suffered losses. MTNL deducted certain amount from the bills of TATA saying that the money has been deducted for the losses suffered by them.

The question before the courts was that when there already exists a contract which lays down the liquidated damages in case of a breach, can a claim of quantum meruit be brought under section 70?

Decision: the court held that in cases where a contract already exists and lays down the damages in case of a breach, a claim of quantum meruit under section 70 is not maintainable. A person is entitled only to the amount stipulated in the main contract and any amount other than that has to be refunded.

This stance has been adopted by the court in older cases also. It is understandable but, in many cases this can prove to be problematic because even if there is an express contract and the prices have been agreed upon, a situation may arise where a person has to do extra work or go out of their way to get the work done. At such times, the person who has to done the work has faced a loss and this has lead to the enrichment of the other party.

Conclusion and Suggestions
Quantum Meruit is a very useful remedy if it is used properly. This is a remedy that ensures nobody gets an unfair or unjust benefit from the services rendered by a person. It is one of the principle concepts of equity which helps in restoring the loss that a party has suffered. It aims to give remedy to every such person who has worked hard for something which he did not intend to do for free and the benefit of that service has been taken up by someone else.

In such situations, to be fair, one has to be given compensation for his services. This remedy developed in common law during the seventeenth century and has evolved ever since. Through the years, it has seen various developments and has evolved in different contexts. This remedy came to India with the British and has developed in our Indian context. We looked at various cases in India which have laid down what is quantum meruit.

The problem this paper tried to address is whether the interpretations of this principle by the courts in India have been able to ensure equitable justice or not. After analyzing certain judgments, we can say that the courts have tried their best to give justice to the aggrieved party and have tried to interpret these provisions in such a manner that they are neither very rigid nor too flexible.

But it is important to point out here that this principle hasn't been realized to its best yet. Indian courts have maintained a stance that when there exists a contract, a claim in quantum meruit cannot be constituted. But, as pointed out earlier, this can create problems in cases where a party has to go out of their way to complete performance of their side of the contract. If such extra-work isn't accounted for in the contract, it will unfair if that party is not adequately compensated.

Although it can also be looked at this way, this situation has encouraged people to draft contracts more carefully and efficiently. But even a well-drafted contract can't always give a fair and just remedy to an aggrieved party. Some suggestions which can help enhance the ambit of the principle of Quantum Meruit in India are: the courts should interpret these provisions in a way that they include contractual quantum meruit as well; it would be better if all the condition that are requisite to constitute a suit for compensation under Quantum Meruit are listed out and made into a rule; Quantum Meruit should be given on the basis of the reasonable price or value of any good or service that is prevalent in the market keeping in view the circumstances of the case in hand.

For now, until the courts change this stance of theirs, people can keep in mind at the time of making a contract to keep the liquidated damages at par with what can be the damages if a suit for quantum meruit is brought. Although this won't be able to solve all the problems, for the time being, this can be done. Thus, we can conclude by saying that quantum meruit is an interesting and useful remedy in law of contracts but its scope needs to be widened through continuous work of the courts.

References

• Beatson, J., Andrew S. Burrows, and John Cartwright. 2020. Anson's Law of Contract. 31st ed. London, England: Oxford University Press
• Pollock & Mulla (2018) The Indian Contract & Specific Relief Acts.15th ed. LexisNexis
• Singh, Avtar (2017). Law of Contract (12th ed.). Lucknow: Eastern Book Company
• Judy B. Sloan, Quantum Meruit: Residual Equity in Law, 42 DePaul L. Rev. 399 (1992)
  Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol42/iss1/31
• G.H.L. Fridman, Quantum Meruit, Alberta Law Review Vol. 37(1) 1999, Available at: https://www.albertalawreview.com/index.php/ALR/article/view/1472/1461
• The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act no. 9 of 1872)

Blogs referred to:

• Pratik Jain, India: Quantum Meruit, Mondaq, published on 14 January 2020
• Available at https://www.mondaq.com/india/contracts-and-commercial-law/881198/quantum-meruit
• (accessed on 2-11-2021)

Websites referred to:

• https://www.wikipedia.org/
• https://www.mondaq.com/
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/
• https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1872-09.pdf

(The Indian Contract Act, 1872)

End-Notes:

1. Black's Law Dictionary
2. ibid
3. Anson's Law of Contract (31st edition, 2020), J. Beatson, A. Burrows, J. Cartwright
4. 1959 SCR 379, AIR 1958 SC 560
5. (1960) 2 SCR 793
6. (1971) 3 SCR 469
7. Judy B. Sloan, Quantum Meruit: Residual Equity in Law, 42 DePaul L. Rev. 399 (1992)
8. G.H.L. Fridman, Quantum Meruit, Alberta Law Review Vol. 37(1) 1999
9. Bukton v. Townsend, Y.B. 22 Lib. Ass., fo. 94, pl. 41 (K.B. 1348)
10. Waldon v. Marshall, Y.B. 43 Edw. 3, fo. 33, pl. 38 (1369)
11. (1532) 93 YB Sel Soc 4
12. 76 Eng. Rep. 1072 (K.B. 1602)
13. 123 Eng. Rep. 927 (C.P. 1609)
14. 82 Eng. Rep. 1224 (K.B. 1657)
15. Moses v. MacFerlan, 97 Eng. Rep. 676 (K.B. 1760) cited in Quantum Meruit: Residual Equity in Law by Judy B. Sloan
16. J & J Penner Construction ltd v. Cringan (1994), 93 Man. R. (2d) 252 (Q.B.)
17. Capital Construction & Foundation ltd. v. Cote (1993), 124 N.B.R. (2d) 204 (T.D.)
18. [1957) I W.L.R. 932
19. Ibid pg. 936
20. (1985), 20 D.L.R. (4th) 245 (Ont. H.C.J.)
21. Unlike the party which decided not to go through with the contract arranged by the agent in Alpha Trading ltd v. Dunnshaw-Patten ltd., [1981] Q.B. 290, on which see G.H.L. Fridman, The law of Agency, 7th ed. (London: Butterworths, 1996) at 197-98.
22. As it would have been in Capital Construction & Foundation ltd. v. Cote (1993), 124 N.B.R. (2d) 204 (T.D.) [hereinafter Capital Construction], if the defendant had obtained anything of value from the work done by the plaintiffs, which was not the case.
23. The Indian Contract Act by Avatar Singh
24. (1971) 1 SCC 424
25. Waldon v. Marshall, Y.B. 43 Edw. 3, fo. 33, pl. 38 (1369)., Avatar Singh
26. AIR 1987 AII 309
27. VR Subramanyam v. B Thayappa (1961) 3 SCR 663
28. AIR 1963 Ker 181
29. Pollock and Mulla Pg. 1056
30. Food Corporation of India v Vikas Majdoor Kamdar Sahkari Mandli Ltd. 2007 AIR SCW 6999; NHPC Ltd. v Oriental Engineers, 2016 SCC OnLine Gau 60
31. (1935) ILR 62 Cal 612
32. Ibid
33. Ibid
34. AIR 1960 SC 588
35. Supra note 24 pg. 809
36. AIR 1968 SC 1218
37. (1971) 3 SCR 469
38. (2019) 5 SCC 341

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Jigyasa Bohra

Authentication No: JL356038689220-13-0723