Search results
Mar 6, 2021 · Lalman Shukla V. Gauri Dutt is touted as a landmark judgment for the validity of the contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The case was filed in the Allahabad high court in the year 1913 and was presided over by Justice Banerji at the Allahabad High Court.
Sep 23, 2024 · The significance of Lalman Shukla vs Gauri Dutt lies in the explanation of the principle that an offer has to be communicated to the offeree and the same has to be accepted for the formation of a valid contract. This landmark judgement has laid down a strong foundation for decision making in cases revolving around the questions of offer and ...
After knowing about the reward Lalman Shukla claimed the money from his master Gauri Dutt. But Gauri Dutt denied paying the reward of Rs 501 to him. As a result the plaintiff Lalman Shukla filed a case against Gauri Dutt his master for not giving him the reward as he is not entitled to recover for the performance of his act.
May 14, 2021 · Lalman Shukla vs Gauri Dutt case (1913) case examines the existence of a Contract if there is no acceptance. Acceptance is that of a Contract like a lighted matchstick to a train filled with gunpowder.
Jul 25, 2023 · Gauri Dutt, the Plaintiff, Lalman Shukla, appealed against the defendant, Gauri Dutt, claiming a reward for finding Gauri Dutt’s missing nephew. However, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that for a valid contract to exist, there must be both knowledge and consent to the offer.
Aug 22, 2023 · Six months after the said incident occurred, Gauri Dutt sacked the plaintiff. After removing from the job, the plaintiff claimed the reward of Rs 501. As a result, the plaintiff Lalman Shukla filed a case against Gauri Dutt, his master, for not rewarding him as he was entitled to.
Jun 4, 2020 · Facts of the case. The defendant in January 1913 sent out all his servants to different places in order to find his nephew who had been absconded from his house. Plaintiff was one among the servants who had been sent out to search for his master’s nephew.
