COERCION (S.

15)

Introduction
According to section 15 of The Indian Contract Act 1872,

“Coercion is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act

forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, or the unlawful detaining, or
threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person
whatever, with intention of causing any person to enter into an
agreement.”

Coercion is said to be there where there were the consent of a person has
been cause either by :-
1. Committing , or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Indian
Penal code, or by
2. Unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain any property.

Such an act should be to the prejudice of any person whatever.

 ESSENTIALS OF COERCION

1)Act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code:-

It has been noted above that if a person commits or threatens to commit an
act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code with a view to obtaining the consent
of the other person to an agreement, the consent in such a case is deemed
to have been obtained by coercion.
For example:-, A threatens to shoot B if B does not agree to sell his
property to A at a stated price, B’s consent in this case has been obtained
by coercion.
For coercion, it is not necessary that the Indian Penal Code should be
applicable at the place where the consent has been so caused.

Explanation to section 15 makes it clear that to constitute coercion, “it is

immaterial whether the Indian Penal Code is or is not in force in the place
where the coercion is employed.”

 The following example would explain the point :-

A, on board an English ship on the high seas, causes B to enter into an

agreement by an act amounting to criminal intimidation under the Indian
Penal Code. A afterwards sues B for breach of contract at Calcutta. A has
employed coercion, although his act is not an offence by law of England,
and although section 506 of the Section Indian Penal Code was not in force
at the time when, or at the place where, the act was done.

In Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Setti, the question before the Madras High

Court was regarding the validity of the adoption of a boy a widow, aged 13
years. On the death of her husband, the husband’s dead body was not
allowed to be removed from her house for cremation, by the relatives of the
adopted boy until she adopted the boy. It was held that the adoption was
not binding on the widow as her consent had been obtained by coercion.
According to Pollock and Mulla, by obstructing the removal of the corpse
the possible offence tried to be committed was under section 297, Indian
Penal Code, which provides punishments to a person for wounding the
feelings of the person by offering indignity to any human corpse . the
authors also think that the case could well have been covered under
section 16 of the Indian Contract Act as the widow’s consent had been
obtained by undue influence.

In Chikkan Ammiraju v. Chikkam Seshama. The question before the

Madras High Court was that whether coercion could be caused by a threat
to commit suicide. In this case A, a Hindu, by a threat of suicide, induced
his wife and son to execute a release deed in favour of A’s brother in
respect of certain properties claimed as their own by the wife and the son.
The question before the court was whether a threat to commit suicide could
be considered to be an act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code. It was held
by Wallis, C.J. and Seshagiri Ayyar, J. that a threat to commit suicide
amounted to commercial within the meaning of section 15 of the Indian
Contract Act and therefore the release deed was voidable. It was observed
that the threat to commit suicide could be considered to be an act forbidden
by the Indian Penal Code and also the threat to kill oneself was an act
where a person was acting to his own prejudice and also to the prejudice of
his wife and the son, and thus the requirements of section 15 were
satisfied. Oldfield J, who dissented, was, however, of the view that suicide
is not an act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code (only an attempt to commit
suicide is punishable under section 309, Indian Penal Code) and a threat to
do that could not be considered to be a threat to do a forbidden act within
the meaning of section 15 of the Contract act.

The majority view in this case appears to be quite convincing. Section

309,I.P.C. makes an (unsuccessful) attempt to commit suicide punishable.
In this case there was nothing but a threat to (successfully) attempt a
suicide. As (successful) attempt to commit suicide is not punishable under
I.P.C. because there is no possibility of punishing the wrongdoer, a threat
to commit suicide, therefore, should be treated as coercion. Section 15 of
the contract act should be amended to expressly cover such cases also, so
that uncertainty caused by different views on the subject is avoided.

It may be noted that committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden

by the Indian Penal Code constitutes coercion. Acts forbidden by other
Penal laws are not included in the definition. The Law Commission of India
in its report on the Indian Contract Act has recommended amendment of
section 15 and inclusion in the definition other Penal Laws also. The
recommendation is as under:-
“the proper function of the Indian Penal Code is to create offences and not
merely to forbid. A Penal Code forbids only what it declares punishable.
There are Laws other than the Indian Penal Code performing the same
function. We suggest that the words “any act forbidden by the Indian Penal
Code should be deleted and a wider expression be substituted therefore so
that Penal Laws other than the Indian Penal Code may also be included.
The explanation should also be amended to the same effect.”
2) Unlawful detaining of property:-

According to section 15 coercion could also be caused by the unlawful

detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any
person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an
agreement.

For example, if an outgoing agent refuses to hand over the account books
to the new agent until the principal executes release in his favour, it is
coercion as held in Muthiah Chettiar v. Karupanchetti.

If the detention of property is not unlawful, there is no coercion. Thus, if a

mortgagee refuses to convey the equity of redemption except on the terms
dictated by him, there is nothing unlawful in it and, therefore, no coercion is
caused in this case as held in Bengal Stone Co. Ltd v. Joseph Hyam.

 Forcible dispossession of property under threat is coercion:-

If a person is dispossessed of his property under illegal threat that unless

he parts with the possession he would be detained under MISA (
Maintenance of Internal Security), partying with the property under such
threat amounts to coercion under section 15.

In Krishan Lal Kalra v. N.D.M.C. is an example of persons affected by

excesses of Emergency period proclaimed in 1975. In this case the
plaintiff was given license by the N.D.M.C. (New Delhi Municipal
Committee) to run an open air Restaurant in Connaught Circus, New Delhi.
The lease was to expire on 31st May 1978. The plaintiff, who started
running the Restaurant under the name and style “Rumble Open Air
Restaurant”, was allegedly thrown out of the premises after taking forcible
possession thereof without due process of law by the defendant who sent
demolition squad with police force on 7th August, 1976. There was also a
threat that the plaintiff would be detained under MISA, if he did not hand
over the possession of the property. The plaintiff alleged that there was
coercion and he filed the present suit claiming damages of Rs. 10 lacs. It
was held that a person is not bound by any act done under duress or
coercion. In this case the threat that the plaintiff would be detained under
MISA amounted to coercion. The plaintiff’s suit was decreed for a sum of
Rs. 9,11,525.12 with cost as well as interest @ 12 % w.e.f 7th August,1979
i.e. the date of filling the suit till the payment of the decreed amount.

3) To the prejudice of a preson:-

Section 15 requires that there should be committing or threatening to

commit, ant act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, or the unlawful
detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any
person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an
agreement. It means that the act causing coercion should not necessarily
be directed against the contracting party, it is enough that the act is to the
prejudice of any person whatever, and with the intention of causing any
person to enter into an agreement. If, for example, A unlawfully detains B’s
son, C, in order to coerce B to enter into the agreement, the case would be
covered within this section. Apart from that, it also not necessary that the
wrongful act causing coercion should proceed from the party to the
contract. Thus, if in order to coerce a widow to adopt a child, the relatives
of the adopted boy do not allow the dead body of the widow’s husband to
be taken out of the home until the adoption is made, this is coercion as held

in Ranganayakamma v. Alwar setti.

Threat to strike is no coercion In workmen of Appin Tea Estate v.

Industrial Tribunal, the demand of the workers for bonus was accepted
after a threat of strike. The question which had arisen was, whether such a
decision between the union of workers and the Indian Tea Association
could be declared void on the ground that there was coercion. It was held
that the cause of the doctrine of collective bargaining under the Industrial
Disputes Act, the demand of the workers could be backed by a threat of
strike. Such threat was neither a threat to commit an offence under the
Indian Penal Code, nor was it unlawful detaining of threatening to detain
any property and hence it did not amount to coercion and as such the
agreement was valid.

 Statutory compulsion is no coercion:-

When a statute requires a contract to be entered into, the consent in such a
case is not deemed to be caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud,
misrepresentation or mistake.

In Andhra Sugars Ltd v. State of A.P., if any cane grower offered to sell
his sugarcane to a factory in a certain zone, the factory was bound to
accept the offer under the Andhra Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation Of
Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961, and accordingly the agreement was
entered into. It was held that in such a case even though there was a legal
compulsion for the factory to make the agreement, the agreement could not
be said to be entered into by the lack of free consent, and there was no
coercion either.Hence it can be concluded by making it clear that coercion
as thus defined implies a committing or threatening to commit some act
which is contrary to law with fulfilling the essentials of coercion.

 When Coercion:-

1. In case of detaining a property even if the person has the right to do is

said to be coerced.
2. A case in which an operator negated to hand over the charge of book,
records and money of his main unless the last executed of deed of
discharge in regard of claim against him, held that deed was under
coercion.
3. A partner detained the money given by his co-partner to a creditor of the
firm, resulted the bond to execute in their favour, and held that it was
coercion.

 When not Coercion:-

1. A threat to withdraw pre-existing criminal proceeding until the bond is

executed is not coercion16whereas instituting false criminal bond is
coercion.
2. If the employees threat to go on strike, it will not lead to coercion18.
Rather it’s their right guaranteed under Industrial Dispute Act.
3. If someone pays money voluntarily for compounding or non
compounding offences, it can’t be said to come under coercion.

 Coercion and Duress:-

Under the English law, actual or threatened violence to the victim’s person
has long been recognized to amount to duress.20 Duress is a term applied
under Indian Contract Law. In coercion even third party can perform the act
but in duress only the party to contract should perform the act. In Duress, it
is only applied for person and cannot detain property. Also coercion can be
seen as the practice of putting someone under duress (i.e almost like
stress.) Coercion is the act of forcing, while duress is more the
consequence (or stressful feeling} that happens as a result of coercion. In
this way the extent of coercion is more extensive than duress. For ex-
Pointing a gun is coercion and signing the contract is coercion.

 Coercion and Undue Influence:-

‘Coercion’ is the demonstration of debilitating a man, to urge him/her to go

into the agreement and play out the commitment. Despite what might be
expected, ‘Undue Influence’ is a demonstration of controlling the will of the
other party, because of the prevailing position of the main party. At the
point when the consent of any of the gatherings to contract is influenced by
coercion or undue influence, it is said that consent isn't free. The burden of
proof lies on the aggrieved party in case of coercion while in undue
influence it lies on the other party.

 Burden of proof :-
The burden of proof lies on the party taking the defence of the coercion.
The onus of proof on him is heavier. It is so as mere probability or
suspicion doesn’t amounts to coercion. To establish coercion a person
must prove there was a threat which was forbidden by law and that
compelled him to get into a contract which otherwise he wouldn’t have.

 Effects of coercion in a contract:-

A contract obtained by means of duress exercised by one party over the
other is void. In this case any benefit received by the either parties to
contract must be restored back. If the aggrieved party has suffered loss, he
can recover the loss from the other party to contract. Power of the court
under the Specific Relief Act,1963- Whenever there is an unfair advantage
to the plaintiff over the defendants while making a contract, the court may
refuse specific performance to the plaintiff. On the contrary if the defendant
had entered into contract which makes it unfair to enforce specific
performance in that case he may be refused too for the specific
performance.

 Coercion under Section 72:-

Liability of person to whom money is paid, or thing delivered, by mistake or
under coercion.A person to whom money has been paid, or anything
delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it. A person
to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under
coercion, must repay or return it."
Example.

(a) A and B jointly owe 100 rupees to C, A alone pays the amount to C, and
Bnot knowing this fact, pays 100 rupees over again to C. C is bound to
repay the amount to B. (a) A and B jointly owe 100 rupees to C, A alone
pays the amount to C, and B, not knowing this fact, pays 100 rupees over
again to C. C is bound to repay the amount to B."

(b) A railway company refuses to deliver up certain goods to the consignee

except upon the payment of an illegal charge for carriage. The consignee
pays the sum charged in order to obtain the goods. He is entitled to recover
so much of the charge as was illegal and excessive. (b) A railway company
refuses to deliver up certain goods to the consignee except upon the
payment of an illegal charge for carriage. The consignee pays the sum
charged in order to obtain the goods. He is entitled to recover so much of
the charge as was illegal and excessive."

 Conclusion:-
It can be said that coercion is one of the major factor which influences the
decision of an individual, it compels him to enter into a contract which
otherwise he wouldn’t. The section also enumerates how a person can
distinguish an act from coercion or not. In case of coercion the burden of
proof lies on the person taking defence of coercion. The reason behind it is
that if it was not so anybody could have approached saying that he has
been coerced. There is a fine line between the narrower aspect under
English law that is duress and the wider aspect of the Indian Contract law
that is coercion. To conclude, any contract under coercion is voidable at the
option of the aggrieved party
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Singh Avtar, Indian Contract Act, Eastern Book Co.,
1978.
3. Pollock and Mulla Indian Contract and Specific
Relief Acts, 9th edition
4. www.Indiankanoon.com.
5. www.manupatra.com.