S.4 Contract Act | Party Can’t Dispute Legally Enforceable Liability Until ‘Communication’ Regarding Termination Of Contract Is Complete: Sikkim HC

S.4 Contract Act | Party Can’t Dispute Legally Enforceable Liability Until ‘Communication’ Regarding Termination Of Contract Is Complete

Case: Prahlad Sharma versus Dipika Sharma and Another

Coram: Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai

Case No.: Crl.Rev.P. No.04 of 2020

Court Observation: “Undoubtedly, the (Termination) Notice Exhibit 1 is dated 25-01-2018, Exhibit 11 stands testimony to the fact that it was booked in the post on 01- 02-2018 and received by the Petitioner only on 08-02-2018. It emerges that there was no termination of Contract when the cheques, Exhibits 1 and 2 were presented by the R1 on 30-01- 2018 before the Bank and came to be dishonoured.”

“It will be seen that the communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made but a different rule is made about acceptance. Communication of an acceptance is complete in two ways – (1) against the proposer when it is put in the course of transmission so as to be out of the power of the acceptor; (2) as against the acceptor when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer.”

“The Agreement was subsisting between the parties in view of Section 4 of the Contract Act and considering the date of posting of Notice Exhibit 11 by the R1 to the Petitioner and the fact that it was received by the Petitioner only on 08-02-2018,”

“If the negotiable instrument happens to be a cheque, Section 139 raises a further presumption that the holder of the cheque received the cheque in discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability,”

Previous Posts

No Recovery Can Be Made From Pension If Employee’s Promotion Was Not Based On Any Misrepresentation: J&K&L High Court

Sec 24(1) RFCTLARR Act- Land Acquisition Proceedings Get “Initiated” From Publication Of Sec 4(1) Notification Under 1894 Act: Supreme Court

Provisions Of Limitation Act Has No Application When A Statute Extinguishes The Right Itself: Supreme Court

Section 482 CrPC – High Court Can Recall Judgment/Order Which Was Passed Without Hearing A Person Prejudically Affected By It: Supreme Court

S.81(5) Motor Vehicle Act: Permit Renewed After Condoning Delay Is Deemed To Be Effective From Date Of Actual Expiry: Karnataka High Court

‘Matter Of Life & Death’: Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge To Minimum Percentile Criteria For NEET-PG Admissions

Workman In Continuous Service For Years Without Any Break Can’t Be Denied Benefit U/S 25F ID Act Merely Because Of Contractual Engagement: Gujarat HC

Right To Property May No More Be A Fundamental Right, But Its Sanctity As Human Right Is Still Intact: J&K&L High Court

‘Wish/Desire Of Child’ Is Different From ‘Best Interest Of Child’: Supreme Court Allows A Father’s Plea Seeking Child Custody


S.4 Contract Act, Termination Of Contract