Indian Contract Act — Section 1
Subs. by Act 12 of 1891, s. 2 and the Second Schedule, Pt. I, for “assurances”.
1. Subs. by Act 12 of 1891, s. 2 and the Second Schedule, Pt. I, for “assurances”.
17
This Bare Act is a government source available in the public domain. It is being used strictly for educational purposes only.
(3) it is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith, or by his agent generally or specially authorized in that behalf, to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for the law for the limitation of suits. In any of these cases, such an agreement is a contract. Explanation 1.—Nothing in this section shall affect the validity, as between the donor and donee, of
any gift actually made.
Explanation 2.—An agreement to which the consent of the promisor is freely given is not void merely because the consideration is inadequate; but the inadequacy of the consideration may be taken into account by the Court in determining the question whether the consent of the promisor was freely given.
Illustrations
(a) A promises, for no consideration, to give to B Rs. 1,000. This is a void agreement. (b) A, for natural love and affection, promises to give his son, B, Rs. 1,000. A puts his promise to B into writing and registers it. This is a
contract.
(c) A finds B’s purse and gives it to him. B promises to give A Rs. 50. This is a contract. (d) A supports B’s infant son. B promises to pay A’s expenses in so doing. This is a contract. (e) A owes B Rs. 1,000, but the debt is barred by the Limitation Act. A signs a written promise to pay B Rs. 500 on account of the debt.
This is a contract.
(f) A agrees to sell a horse worth Rs. 1,000 for Rs. 10. A’s consent to the agreement was freely given. The agreement is a contract
notwithstanding the inadequacy of the consideration.
(g) A agrees to sell a horse worth Rs. 1,000 for Rs. 10. A denies that his consent to the agreement was freely given. The inadequacy of the consideration is a fact which the Court should take into account in considering whether or not A’s consent was freely
given.
Follow cited cases · Browse courts and years · Research topics
Judgments citing Section 1
- SUNITA SINHA v. M/S LEELA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.& ORS.
- Kaushalya Devi v. Suini
- Shri. Abhilash Chandra Roy v. Smt. Sukhoda Roy
- Pushpa Devi and others v. Amit Kumar and others
- M/S LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED v. M/S BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITE
- The High Court · 2025
- M.S. Ananthamurthy & Anr. v. J. Manjula
- M/S DPSG Gurugram v. State of Haryana & Ors.
- CR-5015-2023 and 23 and connected cases v. M/s Jeon S
- The State of Jharkhand v. M/s Himachal Construction Com. Pvt. Ltd. 11, H.I.G. Adarsh Nagar
- The State of Jharkhand v. M/s Himachal Construction Com. Pvt. Ltd. 11, H.I.G. Adarsh Nagar
- Judgment · Supreme Court · 2024
- STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. v. BASANT NAHATA
- MIS RAPTAKOS BRETT AND CO. LTD. v. GANESH PROPERTY
- NawmlHr, 26 v. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, BIHAR
- 1063 PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED v. VENKATESWARLU KARI & Anr.
- THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, COCHIN PORT TRUST v. M/S AREBEE STAR MARITIME AGENCIES
- TAJ MAHAL HOTEL v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & Ors.
- MIS. RASIKLAL KANTILAL & CO v. BOARD OF TRUSTEE OF PORT OF BOMBAY & Ors.
- M/S. SH REE BHAGWATI STEEL ROLLING MILLS v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & Anr.
Text reproduced from the public statutes on which the corpus is built. Verify against the official Gazette before relying on it. This is statute reference, not legal advice.