The document summarizes a 1938 court case from the Calcutta High Court between John Minas Apcar and Louis Caird Malchus. The plaintiff claimed the defendant represented the value of a property share being sold was much higher than its actual value by providing fraudulent letters. In court, the author of the letters testified the defendant had asked him to write them to inflate the price. The judgment found the letters were fraudulent and created to deceive potential buyers. The court concluded the contract was voidable due to fraud by the defendant.

1. John Minas Apcar
Versus
Louis Caird Malchus,
1938
(Calcutta High Court -
Judgement by Derbysire, chief Justice)

2. Presented by : GROUP-2
Shri Soumyaranjan Jena (CUTM Reg No. - 230418280012)
Shri Subhrajyoti Behera (Reg No. - 230418280006)
Shri Mahendra Das ( Reg No. - 230418280003)
Shri Jayadev Routray (Reg No. - 230418280042)
Shri Soumya Ranjan Mohapatra (Reg No. - 230418280033)
OFS Probationers (2020 Batch), Government of Odisha

3. Under the able Guidance of:
Dr. Susanta Kumar Mishra,
Professor ,
School of Management,
Centurion University of Technology and Management (CUTM), Jatni

4. OBJECTIVE:
 To understand the conflict
 To assess the court proceeding
 To analyze the court verdict

5. PARTIES INVOLVED
Plaintiff-
John Minas Apcar
Defendant-
Louis Caird Malchus

6. Overview of the CASE
 A wanted to sell her property to B, and in order to get a high price,
shows B fictitious letters from fake buyers, offering a very high
price for the property.
 B, believing the letters to be genuine, enters into an agreement to
buy A’s property for a high price.
 The contract is voidable at B’s instance, for fraud.

7. CASE DETAILS
 The plaintiff says that Whilst he was there he entered into an agreement
with the defendant for the purchase by him from the defendant of 1/32nd
share in some property described as the Dinhata Jute Company for the
sum of Rs. 12,500.
 The defendant represented to the plaintiff that the Municipal value of the
Dinhata Jute Company was four lacs of rupees.
 The defendant also claimed that he received an offer of Rs. 9,20,000
from a client of Mr. Philip Oddie of Messrs. Morgan & Co., Solicitors and
also another offer of Rs. 8,20,000 from another party and also showed
various correspondence that passed between Mr. Oddie and the
defendant to persuade the plaintiff

8. Continue….
 The defendant also showed the plaintiff a promissory note
executed by Paresh Lai Eoy, an official of E.B. Ry., Lal Monirhat
for Rs. 23,000 in consideration of the defendant's transferring
one anna share in his Dinhata Jute Company in Cooch Behar for
Rs. 25,000 of which Rs. 2000 was paid in cash.
 (iii) The defendant also showed the plaintiff a conveyance in
favour of Nawab Khusru Jung (Home Minister, Kashmir State) for
Rs. 50,000 purporting to convey two annas share in the said Jute
Company.

9. Continue….
 The fraud complained of is this: the plaintiff says that before he
agreed to buy the share of the property because he was shown
three letters relating to the Dinhata Jute property. The first one
was a letter from Mr. Oddie, 2nd one from Mr. H.M. Hafez to Mr.
Oddie on dtd. 13th Jan,1931 and 3rd one from Mr. Hafez to Mr.
Oddie on 6th feb,1931.
 1st letter talks about the purchase price to be 9 Lakh. 2nd letter
talks about the purchase price to be 9,20,000. 3rd letter talks
about the purchase price to be 8,50,000.


10. ***PROCEEDINGS ***
 Mr. Hafez was summoned before the judge and Mr. Hafez said
that the defendant asked him to write these letters to Mr. Oddie
so as to increase the price of the property and that to oblige a
friend, that is to oblige the defendant, he wrote the letters at the
defendant's dictation. The words of the letters are the words of
the defendant.


11. JUDGEMENT
 Those letters were false and fraudulent documents, brought into being for the purpose
of deceiving persons to whom the defendant might later wish to sell shares in the
property.

12. JUDGEMENT…..
 Fraud u/s 17 of the ICA,1872 means and includes any of the following acts
committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with
intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into
the contract
 (1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not
believe it to be true;
 (2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the
fact;
 (3) a promise made without any intention of performing it;
 (4) any other act fitted to deceive;
 (5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.

13. Section 19
Voidability of agreements without free consent
 When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud or
misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the
party whose consent was so caused.
 A party to a contract whose consent was caused by fraud or misrepresentation,
may, if he thinks fit, insist that the contract shall be performed, and that he shall
be put in the position in which he would have been if the representations made
had been true.
 Exception : If such consent was caused by misrepresentation or by silence,
fraudulent within the meaning of section 17, the contract, nevertheless, is not
voidable, if the party whose consent was so caused had the means of
discovering the truth with ordinary diligence.

14. CONCLUSION
 Mere silence does not amount to fraud.
 Where, however, silence as to the facts is likely to influence
the other party’s decision to enter into the contract, or if the
silence is equivalent to speech, silence would amount to
fraud.