Determining Contractual Jurisdiction In Telephonic Communication: A Case Comment On Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia V. Girdharilal Parshottamdas And Co. And Others
Kshitij Kumar, LL.B. (Hons.), Chanakya National Law University (CNLU), Patna, Bihar
ABSTRACT
This case comment examines the Supreme Court of India resolved a case in ‘Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Co.’, where it ruled there was a contractual relationship formed by the telephone call occurred between the two parties while arguing about the higher-level question of what happens when technology affects the way contracts are offered and accepted. The court stated that telephone calls are different form the traditional methods of communication because contracts were considered formed when acceptance was communicated and not merely when acceptance was posted to the intended party. This case comment analyzes the rationale of the majority opinion of the judge(s) and compares that to the rationale of the dissenting opinion while examining the contrast of judicial interpretation of statute for the purposes of achieving a desired outcome versus applying the statute literally. The paper will also critique the court’s attempt to reconcile the rules set forth in the Indian Contract Act of 1872 with respect to types of communications that were previously unanticipated when the law was originally enacted. The comment will further evaluate how this ruling will change the understanding of jurisdiction in establishing contracts through instantaneous methods of communication. The author believes that this case represents an important change in Indian contract law because it shows how the judiciary is able to adapt to changing commercial circumstances while maintaining the fundamental contractual principle of consensus ad idem. The comment concludes with an analysis of how the results in this court case will affect future cases involving issues associated with communication via technology.
