India: Treatment Of "Doctrine Of Privity" By Indian Judiciary

An Introduction to the controversy related to the "Doctrine of Privity": "Doctrine of Privity" is one of the debated doctrines under law of contracts, not only in India but around the world. The uncertainty behind the legal position in this regard is not merely because of the lack of clarity in the statutes or dissenting judicial pronouncements but much of it owes to the academic and judicial debates associated with the very basis of this doctrine and its comparative advantages and disadvantages.

The controversy and unsettled position with respect to the Doctrine of Privity is not only relevant in day to day commercial contracts but also for high value and complex transactional contracts. In practice it is not uncommon for the contracting parties to impose obligations on other party's affiliates, relatives and agents with respect to terms like restrictive covenants, non-compete and confidentiality obligations. Interest of such third parties is very well protected through the contracting parties through which they are related to the contract. No doubt there are volumes of cases in the books and journals in which such related third parties who are not parties to a contract have been allowed to sue upon it and their interest is secured against any breach by the counter party. But those cases are based on the view that such related third parties are claiming through a party to the contract, that it is in the position of a "cestuique trust"1 or of a principal suing through an agent, that under the old procedure he/it could have filed a suit in equity, even if he/it could not have sued at common law. Those cases are recognized exception to the general principle that only parties to a contract can sue upon it. However is it possible for such related parties to enforce their rights or protect their interest in their independent capacity? This article makes an attempt to analyze the current legal position in this regard and possible precautions while documenting the said clauses.

What is "Doctrine of Privity"?: To begin with it is very necessary to understand what this doctrine actually speaks about. In layman's language the "Doctrine of Privity" can be worded so as to mean that a contract cannot confer rights or impose those obligations arising under it, on any person except the parties to it.2 However, whenever there are third party beneficiaries in a contract, it may become necessary to determine as to, who, in the eyes of the law should be liable or should be protected in event of inexorable breaches that may occur from time to time. From here arises the whole debate about the significance, practical hassles and debates created by this doctrine.

Judicial Interpretation of the Doctrine: a departure from "Tweedle v Atkinson" rule: It is generally agreed that theTweddle vAtkinson has laid down "the true common law doctrine" of the modern third party rule3. In Tweddle v. Atkinson, the Court acknowledged the existence of contrary authorities, but held that the Doctrine of Privity of contract meant that third party beneficiary could not enforce against the promisor the promise that the promisor had made to the promisee. The rule was affirmed in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. Selfridge & Co. Ltd4and subsequently been reaffirmed in numerous cases.

The decision in Tweddle v Atkinson was based on two grounds, firstly the third party was not privy to the contract and secondly, the consideration did not flow from the third party claiming under the contact. The two principles of privity and consideration have become tangled but are still distinct. Even though under Indian Contract Act, the definition of consideration is wider than in English law and the consideration can very well be given by a non-contracting party, yet the common law principle of Doctrine of Privity is generally accepted in India.

Today the legal fraternity around the world has recognized that with the increasingly complex world of commerce there must be some changes to avoid the hardship caused by the rigid adherence to the Doctrine of Privity and accommodate certain exceptions to the general rule thereby ensuring restitution to the aggrieved persons. However the extent to which these exceptions are recognized vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In the words of Jenkins, CJ:

"That Indian Contract Act is unlike the English Contract Act and the limits with which the doctrine of privity of contract operates in English law cannot with same vigour be applicable to Indian Contract Act"5.

Time and again Indian judiciary has reiterated that the administration of justice should not be hampered by Tweedle v Atkinson6 and that in India, we are free from these trammels and are guided in matters of procedure by the rules of justice, equity and good conscience.

Concept of 'Beneficiary" as an exception to the Doctrine of Privity: The application of Doctrine of Privity has been appreciated by the Indian courts with the well –recognized exceptions like beneficiaries of a trust, family arrangement and marriage settlements, tort, collateral contracts, creation of charge or covenants running with land. The aforementioned are more or less the well- accepted and settled exceptions to the Doctrine of Privity. However these are not exhaustive and from time to time, number of exceptions against the Doctrine of Privity has been evolved and recognized by Indian judiciary and more than often quoted exception is that a person for whose benefit the contract is entered into can certainly sue as it is "beneficiary" in the contract.

In India, the apex court has by its decision in M.C. Chacko v State of Travancore7 in a far reaching attempt of clearing the ambiguities in the application of the Doctrine of Privity held that a person not a party to a contract cannot subject to certain well recognized exceptions, enforce the terms of the contract. The recognized exception mentioned in the quoted judgment is worded widely so as to cover the beneficiaries under the terms of the contract. Views on the rights of third party beneficiaries have been laid down by other courts of the country. For instance in Bhujendra Nath vs. Sushamoyee Basu8, the division bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that a stranger to a contract which is to his benefit is entitled to enforce the agreement to his benefit. In Pandurang vs. Vishwanath9, it has been held the person beneficially entitled under the contract can sue even though not a party to the contract itself.

To quote Lord-Williams J, from a considered judgment in KhirodBehariDutt v. Man Gobinda10

"..though ordinarily only a person who is a party to the contract can sue on it, where a contract is made for the benefit of a third person, there may be an equity in the third person to sue upon the contract."

Hence it is clear that Indian judiciary has recognized "beneficiary" to the contract as an exception to the general rule of Doctrine of Privity. So the next question arises as to who may be treated as a "beneficiary" under a contract? Are there any criteria to be met to fall under the category of "beneficiary"? Whether affiliates, relatives and agents of the parties can be treated as "beneficiary" if their role is restricted to few terms like mentioned hereinabove?

Who essentially is a "Beneficiary"? There is no clear definition of the term "beneficiary" given under the Indian Contract Act. However analyzing the treatment of Indian Judiciary to such cases, it becomes clear that the intent is not to capture any person who draws any benefit out of the contract or is affected by a breach by any party but only those persons who are specifically intended to be beneficiary under the contract or for whose benefit the contract is entered into. Any indefinite or unidentified person should not be considered as a "beneficiary" for this purpose. In other words distinction needs to be made between the "intended beneficiary" and "incidental beneficiary". The category which falls under the accepted exception is "intended beneficiary".

When two parties to a contract confer benefits on a third party who has not signed the contract, then it would appear that they intended that the third party should be in a position to independently enforce that right. In such circumstances, the third party would be adversely affected if the two parties signing the contract were to cancel or amend the contract to the detriment of the third party. It was recommended by the law commission of India in its 87threport that where a contract expressly conferring a benefit directly upon a third party has been adopted by a third party, the contracting parties cannot substitute a new contract for it or rescind or alter it so as to effect the rights of third party. However this recommendation has not been implemented till date. Possibly the argument against its implementation is that the very essence of contract i.e. the intention of the parties and freedom of parties to vary the contract as per mutual understanding and agreement at any time would be at peril because of such restrictions. It could however be argued that as long as there is reciprocity as to the binding nature of the contract between the persons who want to enforce it and the person against whom it is sought to be enforced, the parties should not be allowed to vary or change the terms of contract even with mutual agreement. The aforesaid view is supported by the judgment given in the case of Kedar Das Mohta v. NandLalPoddar11. Accordingly, if the intended beneficiary under the contract performs its obligations and the parties accept or act in pursuance of the same, it would imply that parties have acted under the contract and once it does so it cannot then take any step so as to deny the rights of the beneficiary.

As a practical perspective of the above, international judicial precedents have laid down that the following two issues should be checked as soon as the issue whether a particular third party can enforce its rights under the contract creeps in:

  1. Did the parties to the contract intend to extend the benefit in question to the third party seeking to rely on the contractual provision?;and
  2. Are the activities performed by the third party seeking to rely on the contractual provision the very activities contemplated as coming within the scope of the contract in general or the provision in particular, again as determined by reference to the intentions of the parties?

In nutshell, the possible explanations for broadening the scope of exceptions to the general rule of privity and extending it to the "beneficiaries" in general could be the commercial perspectives or giving effect to the intentions of the contracting parties.

The last connected question which remains unanswered is whether this right can be used merely as a defense or can be used to enforce rights or sue the parties also? Going by the aforesaid logic of there is no reason why these exceptions should not be interpreted in favour of the beneficiaries and used as a sanction to enforce the rights also.

A right to enforce the contract means (1) a right to all remedies given by the courts for breach of contract (and with the standard rules applicable to those remedies applying by analogy) that would have been available to the third party had he been a party to the contract, including damages, awards of an agreed sum, specific performance and injunctions; and (2) a right to take advantage of a promised exclusion or restriction of the promisor's rights as if the third party were a party to the contract. However to the best of knowledge, there is no decision by our Judiciary in this regard and most of the other jurisdictions still want to restrict this right as a "shield" instead of being used as a "sword". This point is still open for interpretation till the time any judicial pronouncement is made on the same.

Concluding remarks...

The current relaxed requirements of modern contract law and non-conventional approach of the judiciary in relation to Doctrine of Privity have provided an avenue for redress to genuinely affected persons who the strict interpretation of Doctrine of Privity might have been deprived of rights as such. Under the current operation of the law, a stranger could be awarded damages if the infringement is proved. However the stranger should be included under the scope of "intended beneficiary" who has reciprocal obligations under the contract.

The views of judiciary and also academicians as to the scope of "beneficiary" and applicability of this doctrine are not uniform and the possibility of conflict or dispute cannot be ruled out. Specifically in reference to the transactional and complex agreements involving certain obligations of thirdparties like agents, affiliates, consultants, etc. it becomes difficult to ascertain who the "intended beneficiaries" actually are? From practical perspective, it is advisable to include a specific clause in the agreement stating that the parties (whether specifically identified or categorized) who can enforce their rights as "third party beneficiary" under the contract. The incorporation of such a specific clause would however be subject to any defenses available to the contracting parties.


1. Short for cestui a que use le trust estcréé, meaning 'the person for whose benefit anything is given in trust to another'.

2. See: Harnam Singh v. Purbi Devi, AIR 2000 HP 108; Narayani Devi v Tagore CommericalCorpn Ltd AIR 1973 Cal 401.

3. See: Gandy v. Gandy, (1885) 30 ChD 57, 69 (Bowen LJ)

4. [1915] AC 847

5. DebnarayanDuttvsChunilalGhose, reported in (1914) ILR 41 Cal 137; approved and followed in N DevarajeUrs v M Ramakrishniah AIR 1952 Mys 109.

6. (1861) 1 B & S 393, [1861-73] All ER Rep 369, 124 RR 610

7. AIR 1970 SC 504

8. AIR 1936 Cal 66

9.AIR 1939 Nag 20

10. AIR 1934 Cal 682

11. AIR 1971 Pat 253: It has been held therein that an agreement cannot be enforced at the instance of a person who himself is not bound by it. In other words, there must be reciprocity as to the binding nature of the agreement between the persons who want to enforce it and the person against whom it is sought to be enforced.

© 2013, Vaish Associates, Advocates,
All rights reserved with Vaish Associates, Advocates, 10, Hailey Road, Flat No. 5-7, New Delhi-110001, India.

Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed to the author at Priyesh Sharma

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in this article are solely of the authors of this article.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Priyesh Sharma, Vaish Associates Advocates Delhi, India
In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions