State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal & Sons, AIR 1962 SC 779

Introduction

This case involves the idea of a Quasi Contract as outlined in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA). Quasi contracts occur when one person receives the advantage of something without paying for it, or when another person bears the burden of it.

Facts

• In this case, the Plaintiff put up a certain offer for temporary storage godowns in the District of Hooghly at Arambagh for the use of the Civil Supplies Department of the State of Bengal.
• The respondent accepted the offer and completed the said construction and raised a bill which was duly paid.
• It was alleged by the respondent that the Additional Deputy Director of Civil Supplies visited the Arambagh and instructed the respondent to proceed according to the construction as submitted in its estimate.
• That the respondent completed the said construction accordingly and a bill of Rs. 23,228/- was submitted on behalf of the Assistant Director of Civil Supplies.
• Again, the Assistant Director wrote a letter to the respondent asking to proceed with the construction. The said work was completed by the respondent in due course on a bill of Rs. 17,003/- was also submitted.
• Thereafter, the respondent claimed that the two bills of Rs. 23,228/- and Rs. 17,003/- remained unpaid, respectively.

Issues Involved

• Whether the plaintiff claim it as valid contract?
• Whether there was any contract between plaintiff and respondent for building a warehouse?

Observation

• The court said that there are three conditions which should be satisfied for invoking the Section 70 of the ICA.
  • First, that the person should lawfully do something for another person or deliver something to him,
  • Second, is that in doing the said thing or delivering the said thing, he must not intend to act gratuitously.
  • Third, that the other person for whom something is done or to whom something is delivered must enjoy the benefit thereof.
• The Court also mentioned that in the current situation, the person who appealed liked the work and chose not to use the warehouse. If this person decides to accept and enjoy the warehouse, then Section 70 ICA can be applied, and they can use it.
• This section does not prevent the government from accepting work without a valid contract, but it does not make it illegal for the government to benefit from work that was done for it without any contract.

Conclusion

The court held that there was no justifiable contract between the parties and claim under Section 70 of ICA. Therefore, HC dismissed the appeal.

Note

• Section 70 of ICA: Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act
  • Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered.