What is the effect of a contract lacking consideration under Section 26 of the Contracts Act 1950? Is a court bound to decide only issues raised in the pleadings? Can estoppel override the statutory requirement for consideration in a contract?

Key Points: - The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's appeal, setting aside the High Court's order that found ADW2 valid, ruling ADW2 void for lack of consideration under s 26 of Contracts Act 1950 (!) (!) (!) . - ADW2 increased interest rate from 5% to 7.5% on ADW1 works, but provided no consideration from defendant to plaintiff, rendering it void (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Parties are bound by pleadings; High Court erred by finding consideration in ADW1 works completion, which defendant did not plead (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Contracts like ADW1, ADW2, and NADW are separate with distinct obligations and considerations, not to be read as one composite contract (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Estoppel cannot override statutory requirement for consideration under s 26; plaintiff not estopped from challenging ADW2 validity (!) (!) (!) (!) . - High Court erred in relying on unpleaded issues and extrinsic evidence like defendant's financial difficulties, irrelevant without consideration (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Variation of contract under s 63 requires fresh consideration; absent here, ADW2 unenforceable (!) (!) (!) .

What is the effect of a contract lacking consideration under Section 26 of the Contracts Act 1950?

Is a court bound to decide only issues raised in the pleadings?

Can estoppel override the statutory requirement for consideration in a contract?