Search results
Jun 28, 2021 · Mohori Bibi vs Dharmodas Ghose case gave the well-defined principle that any contract entered by a minor is void ab initio and doctrine of restitution turns out to be unenforceable in such circumstances.
Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose, [1903] UKPC 12, is a major Indian contract law case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The case held that a contract entered into by a minor is totally void.
Jun 15, 2020 · Mohori Bibee v/s Dharmodas Ghose. In the Privy Council. Citation- (1903) ILR 30 Cal 539 (PC) Date of Judgement- 04 March 1903. Name of the Judges- Lord McNaughton, Lord Davey, Lord Lindley, Sir Ford North, Sir Andrew Scoble, Sir Andrew Wilson. Facts of the case- Dharmodas Ghose was the respondent in this case.
Apr 4, 2022 · Judgement of Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose Case. The Court of First Instance heard the case and granted relief to the minor. The case was then appealed by Brahmo Dutt in the Appellate Court, but it was dismissed.
v Dharmodas Ghose's mother sent a notification to Brahmo Dutta informing him about the minority of Dharmodas Ghose on the date on which such mortgage deed was commenced. v but the proportion or sum of loan that was actually provided was less than Rs. 20,000.
Sep 30, 2023 · The established legal principle in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose is that agreements with minors are void ab initio, meaning void from the outset. Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose Summary. The case of Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose was a landmark legal case in India. Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, had mortgaged his property to Brahmo Dutta.
Facts. Dharmodas Ghose is the plaintiff and Mohori Bibee is the defendant but she is the executive and legal representor of Brahmo Dutt. The plaintiff is a minor and if he enters any contact so it will be void ab initio but he enters in a contract by misrepresenting his age and him being a major.
