The case of Kedarnath Bhattacharji v Gorie Mahomed is a cornerstone of Indian contract law. It examines whether a promise to donate money, especially for a public cause, becomes legally binding if someone acts upon that promise. The dispute emerged when a donor pledged a contribution to build a town hall, but later refused to pay. The municipal committee had already begun construction relying on that promise . This led to a legal battle over the enforceability of moral obligations . The court's decision redefined the application of consideration in contracts, especially regarding gratuitous promises. The ruling clarified that if someone takes action and incurs a loss based on a promise, the promisor becomes legally liable. The case remains widely cited in law schools and judgments. Its influence continues in matters involving civic contributions, donations, and public commitments. For a deeper understanding of important judicial decisions explore Landmark Judgements .

Kedarnath Bhattacharji v Gorie Mahomed : Historical Context

The events of Kedarnath Bhattacharji versus Gorie Mahomed took place in colonial India in 1886. At that time, public institutions often relied on citizens for donations to fund community infrastructure. In the town of Howrah, a proposal to build a town hall received widespread support. Gorie Mahomed was among the individuals who promised money to the municipal committee . Acting on these pledges the committee started the construction project . But when Mahomed refused to pay, legal action followed. This case tested the boundaries between moral obligations and legally enforceable contracts. At its heart was the question of whether a donation promise, made without formal agreement or benefit to the promisor, could become binding. Courts had to assess if public reliance could replace traditional forms of contractual consideration. This decision became a landmark, significantly influencing how Indian courts interpret charitable or civic contributions.

Download Kedarnath Bhattacharji v Gorie Mahomed PDF

The municipal committee represented by Kedarnath Bhattacharji, filed a lawsuit against Gorie Mahomed to recover Rs. 100, which he had pledged for building the town hall. The petitioner claimed that based on this promise, the committee began work and hired contractors, incurring financial liabilities. The legal argument rested on the doctrine of reliance-based consideration. Even though there was no benefit flowing to Mahomed, the petitioner claimed that the committee's action—motivated by the promise—created sufficient ground for enforcement. The committee argued that public projects depend on such pledges and that allowing withdrawal after performance begins would create chaos. The case thus wasn't about the amount involved, but about the broader legal issue of enforceability. The court had to examine whether this was a gratuitous promise or a legally binding commitment..

Arguments Supporting Petitioner 

The petitioner’s counsel stressed that Kedarnath Bhattacharji and the municipal committee began construction based on Gorie Mahomed’s promise . They argued that this promise was not merely moral but legally enforceable due to the committee’s detrimental reliance . The financial obligations incurred, including contractual liabilities with builders, were proof of action based on the donor’s word. The counsel highlighted Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, which defines consideration as including acts or abstentions done at the desire of the promisor. The municipal committee would not have acted without Mahomed's pledge . Enforcing such promises, the petitioner claimed was vital for maintaining public confidence in civic initiatives . Otherwise it would discourage individuals from supporting social infrastructure. The petitioner also invoked public duty and the role of local governments.

Arguments Supporting the Respondent 

Gorie Mahomed’s defense focused on the absence of consideration . His counsel claimed that there was no legal benefit to the promisor and hence no enforceable contract existed . They emphasized that his promise was voluntary lacking mutual agreement or formal acceptance . As per traditional contract law a mere moral duty does not translate into legal obligation . Mahomed’s lawyers insisted that unless there was a written agreement or quid pro quo, no enforceability could arise. They also stated that if every oral promise were enforceable, it would set a dangerous precedent in contract law. Mahomed’s defense relied heavily on common law principles that require clear consent and benefit for both parties. Thus, they asked for the suit to be dismissed as untenable under the Indian Contract Act.

Kedarnath Bhattacharji v Gorie Mahomed : Issue Addressed 

The central issue in Kedarnath Bhattacharji versus Gorie Mahomed was whether a donation pledge could become enforceable if the promisee acted upon it and incurred a loss . This case tested the limits of contractual consideration questioning whether a public promise, made without direct gain to the promisor could be binding if reliance was proven . The legal system had to determine the value of moral promises versus legal contracts . The issue went beyond one donation—it addressed public accountability, civic development and fairness . Could the trust placed by civic bodies in public pledges be legally protected ? The ruling answered yes, setting a transformative standard . Today this issue underlies many CSR obligations and crowd-funding disputes . The case laid the groundwork for modern doctrines like promissory estoppel .

Kedarnath Bhattacharji v Gorie Mahomed : Legal Provisions

The case revolves around key provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872—Section 2(d) and Section 25(2). Section 2(d) defines consideration as something done or abstained from at the desire of the promisor. This includes past, present, or future acts. It means that even if the act is already done, it can still be valid consideration if it was done with the promisor’s desire. Section 25(2) provides an exception to the rule that agreements without consideration are void . It states that a promise made to compensate someone for a past voluntary act can be enforceable.

In this case, Mahomed promised a donation, but there was no formal contract. However, the committee acted on his promise which created reliance. The court viewed this reliance as equivalent to valid consideration, making the promise enforceable . This led to the concept of reliance-induced liability, where if a person changes their position because of a promise, the promisor is bound .

The court’s decision laid the groundwork for promissory estoppel an equitable principle still relevant today . It ensures justice when promises, even without formal contracts are relied upon. This interpretation protects public interest and applies to cases involving charitable donations or civic commitments even in modern times.

The court ruled in favor of Kedarnath Bhattacharji, ordering Gorie Mahomed to pay the promised Rs. 100 . The ruling clarified that consideration doesn’t always mean benefit to the promisor; it also includes loss or action taken by the promisee . This case became a benchmark for donation enforceability influencing contract cases for over a century. It’s regularly cited in judgments dealing with charitable trusts, crowdfunding, and CSR obligations. 

The impact extends beyond courts—it shapes how NGOs, local governments, and donors structure their agreements. By upholding reliance-based liability, the case broadened the scope of enforceable promises under Indian law. It is a critical precedent in legal education and contractual interpretation.

Conclusion 

The ruling in Kedarnath Bhattacharji v Gorie Mahomed continues to serve as a guiding light in the realm of Indian contract law. It solidifies the principle that when a promise leads someone to act and incur a loss, that promise is not merely moral—it becomes legally binding. The case laid the foundation for future doctrines like promissory estoppel and the broader understanding of consideration under Indian law.