Search results
People also ask
What is lalman Shukla vs Gauri Dutt case?
How to enter into a contract in lalman Shukla vs Gauri Dutt?
What are the facts of lalman Shukla V Gauri Datt?
What was missing in lalman Shukla V Gauri Dutt?
Mar 6, 2021 · A short case note on the landmark judgment of Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt, which established the principle of knowledge and assent for contract formation. The case involved a servant who found a missing boy and claimed a reward, but the court dismissed his suit for lack of contract.
Learn about the landmark judgment of Lalman Shukla v Gauri Dutt, which deals with the validity of a contract without acceptance. Find out the facts, issues, arguments and verdict of the case, and the essentials of a valid contract under the Indian Contract Act.
Sep 23, 2024 · Title of the Case: Lalman Shukla vs. Gauri Dutt; Date of Judgement: April 17th, 1913; Plaintiff: Lalman Shukla Defendant: Gauri Dutt; Equivalent citation: Civil Revision Petition No. 10 of 1913, MANU/ UP/ 0388/ 1913; Type of case: Civil Revision Petition; Court: High Court of Allahabad; Bench: Justice Banerji; Background of the case
Aug 22, 2023 · The case involves a dispute over a reward offered by a master to his servant for finding his missing nephew. The court held that there was no valid contract because the servant had no knowledge of the offer and did not accept it.
Jun 4, 2020 · A case summary of a dispute over a reward for finding a missing child, where the plaintiff claimed to have fulfilled the conditions of the offer without knowing it. The court held that a contract requires knowledge and assent of a proposal, and dismissed the claim of the plaintiff.
Jul 25, 2023 · Learn about the facts, issues, arguments, and judgement of the case Lalman Shukla vs Gauri Dutt, where the plaintiff claimed a reward for finding the defendant's nephew. The case involved the concepts of offer, acceptance, and communication in the Indian Contract Act.
A case of a servant who traced a missing boy and claimed a reward from his master. The court held that there was no contract between the parties and the reward was not due to the servant.
