3. V. C. Rangadurai vs D. Gopalan 1979 SCR (1) 1054

Case Name: V. C. Rangadurai vs D. Gopalan Citation: 1979 SCR (1) 1054

Parties: Appellant: V. C. Rangadurai Respondent: D. Gopalan

Facts:
The appellant and the respondent were partners in a business under the name and style of "Gopalan and Company". The partnership was dissolved by mutual agreement, and the parties entered into a new agreement, which provided that the appellant was to take over the business and was to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 11,500/- as a full and final settlement of all claims arising out of the dissolution of the partnership. The appellant failed to pay the agreed amount and the respondent filed a suit for recovery of the amount.

Facts in issue:
The main issue in this case was whether the respondent was entitled to the agreed sum of Rs. 11,500/- as per the terms of the new agreement.

Order:
The Supreme Court held that the agreement between the parties was binding and the appellant was liable to pay the respondent the sum of Rs. 11,500/- as per the terms of the agreement. The Supreme Court also held that the suit was maintainable and the lower court was correct in passing a decree in favor of the respondent.

Explanation:
This case dealt with the enforcement of an agreement between the parties and the liabilities arising out of such agreements. The Supreme Court held that an agreement between the parties, which was entered into with free consent and without any coercion or undue influence, was binding upon them. In this case, the appellant and the respondent had entered into a new agreement, which provided that the appellant was to take over the business and was to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 11,500/- as a full and final settlement of all claims arising out of the dissolution of the partnership. The Supreme Court held that the agreement was binding upon the parties and the appellant was liable to pay the respondent the sum of Rs. 11,500/- as per the terms of the agreement.

The Supreme Court also held that the suit was maintainable and the lower court was correct in passing a decree in favor of the respondent. This case highlights the importance of agreements and the binding nature of such agreements upon the parties. It also underscores the principle that agreements entered into with free consent and without coercion or undue influence are enforceable in a court of law.