Site navigation

In Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co., decided in 1953, which doctrine did the Supreme Court of…

The Supreme Court examined frustration under section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It distinguished a contingency provided for by the contract, which may fall under…

Choose your answer

In Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co., decided in 1953, which doctrine did the Supreme Court of India examine in assessing whether temporary requisition of land discharged the contract?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer C

The Supreme Court examined frustration under section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It distinguished a contingency provided for by the contract, which may fall under section 32, from a supervening event that defeats the basis of the bargain. On these facts, the temporary requisition did not frustrate the contract.

Option feedback

Option A

The appeal did not turn on a party’s age or capacity to contract.

Option B

The issue was the effect of an event arising after the contract was made. The adequacy of consideration did not decide the appeal.

Option C

The Court interpreted supervening impossibility under section 56 and held the requisition did not frustrate this contract.

Option D

The Court distinguished agreed contingencies under section 32 from frustration under section 56. It examined the requisition under the latter doctrine.

Practice for these exams

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic