Back
A. K. SARKAR, K. C. DAS GUPTA, K. N. WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR
State Of W. B. – Appellant
Versus
B. K. Mondal And Sons – Respondent
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit filed by the respondent B. K. Mondal and Sons against the appellant the State of West Bengal on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court claiming a sum of Rs. 19,325/- for works done by it for the appellant. This claim was made out in two ways. It was alleged that the works in question had been done by the respondent in terms of a contract entered into between the parties and as such the appellant was liable to pay the amount due for the said works. In the alternative it was alleged that if the contract in question was invalid then the respondent s claim fell under S. 70 of the Indian Contract Act. The respondent had lawfully done such works not intending to act gratuitously in that behalf and the appellant had enjoyed the benefit thereof.
2. The respondents case was that on February 8, 1944, it offered to put up certain temporary storage godowns at Arambagh in the District of Hooghly for the use of the Civil Supplies Department of the State of Bengal and that the said offer was accepted by the said department by a letter dated February 12, 1944. Accordingly the respondent completed the said construct
NARAYAN CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY VS UNION OF INDIA - 1980 0 Supreme(Cal) 4: "State of West Bengal, has been overruled by implication by State of West Bengal v. B. K. Mondal and Sons." This explicitly indicates that a prior decision was overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. B. K. Mondal and Sons, making the earlier decision bad law.
[Followed]
Several references, such as in <01700013953> and <01700005876>, indicate that the Supreme Court followed or reaffirmed the principles laid down in AIR 1962 SC 779 (Mondal and Sons), suggesting that this case has been treated as good law and authoritative.
Multiple instances mention that the case "held" or "laid down" principles that are subsequently cited in later decisions, e.g., <02200023134>, <01700020218>, <02000013695>, and <01800028723>.
The case is repeatedly cited as a leading or landmark decision on the interpretation of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, e.g., <02300019038>, <01400028444>, <00200048600>.
[Criticized or Referenced]
Several references, such as in <01701965048>, <01701977002>, and <01400031989>, note that the case was followed or relied upon, but some also mention that the principles are reiterated or clarified in subsequent judgments.
In <01400011120> and <02300029112>, the case is cited in the context of legal principles without indicating any criticism.
[Unclear or Ambiguous Treatment]
A few references, such as <00900037038> and <01400030561>, mention the case in passing or in relation to legal principles but do not clearly state whether the case has been overruled or criticized. For example, <00900037038> references the case in context of constitutional provisions but does not clarify its current standing.
Some references, like <02100135697> and <02100138422>, cite the case along with other authorities but do not specify whether the case’s authority has been reaffirmed or questioned.
The treatment of the case in <00900010230> and <01800017468> appears to be consistent with respect but lacks explicit commentary on whether it remains good law or has been questioned, thus remaining somewhat uncertain.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
