Question 2 (d)

Payment to a witness to abstain from a trial

6 marks

Time to write: About 12 minutes
Topic: Legality of object and void agreements
Notes: Crux notes

Question

Question 2 (d) · 6 marks

Rohan promises to pay Rs. 40,000 to Sameer, who has been summoned as a witness in a lawsuit against Rohan, in consideration of Sameer's promise to abstain from the trial. Sameer abstains, but Rohan declines to make the payment. Can Sameer recover the money from Rohan? Comment with proper explanation Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Reworded from the university paper; the task is the same. The original paper belongs to the University of Delhi. See DU's question bank.

Before you write

Read off the question and its marks

12 minfor 6 marks

Read from the question

Can Sameer recover…?A case problem: state the rule and its section, apply it to these facts, then answer in one line (yes or no, and why).

Write it in this order

Read the facts; underline who did what, and the exact question 1 min
1 Section 23: unlawful consideration, public policy 2 marks 3 min
2 Agreements interfering with justice; the witness example 2 marks 3 min
3 Application and decision 2 marks 3 min
Check: section named, answer stated in one line 2 min

123

Short on time? Trim steps 1–3 evenly rather than skip one: each is capped at its own marks.

Try it first. About 12 minutes for 6 marks. Write it out, then open the solution.

Solution

Hover or tap a marked figure, like 72,000, to see how it is made and where else it appears.

Law. Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 declares void every agreement whose object or consideration is unlawful, including one the court regards as opposed to public policy. Agreements that interfere with the course of justice are opposed to public policy. In particular, an agreement by A to reward B, a witness A expected to be called in a suit against him, in return for B staying away from the trial is void.

Application. Rohan promised to pay ₹40,000 to Sameer, who had been summoned as a witness in a lawsuit against Rohan, in consideration of Sameer's promise to abstain from the trial. The consideration for Rohan's promise, Sameer's absence from the trial, defeats the administration of justice. The agreement is therefore opposed to public policy and void.

Decision. Although Sameer has abstained, he cannot recover the ₹40,000 from Rohan. A void agreement creates no enforceable obligation, and the court will not assist a party to an agreement whose consideration is unlawful.

Where the 6 marks sit

#	Component	Marks
1	Section 23: unlawful consideration, public policy	2
2	Agreements interfering with justice; the witness example	2
3	Application and decision	2
	Total	6

Keyboard: ← → previous and next question, / search

Report a problemopens an email to admin@getkunji.com with the question ID7503-Q2dalready filled in.