Distinction between Fraud and Misrepresentation below Indian Contract Act, 1872

In our day by day lives, we use the time period fraud to refer somebody who meant to deceive others, in authorized phrases part 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines fraud as any act which incorporates any of the next acts dedicated by a celebration to a contract , or together with his connivance, or by his agent, with the intent to deceive one other social gathering thereto or his agent, with the intent to deceive one other social gathering thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract-

a) the suggestion, as a truth, of that which isn’t true, by one who doesn’t imagine it to be true

b) the lively concealment of a truth by one having information or perception of the very fact;

c) a promise made with none intention of performing it;

d) another act fitted to deceive;

e) any such act or omission because the legislation particularly declares to be fraudulent.

Silence in a contract which may have an effect on the willingness of an individual to enter right into a contract doesn’t quantity to fraud till circumstances are completely different. We are going to focus on this intimately on this article.

Misrepresentation is outlined below Part 18 of the act stating that it consists of

  1. The constructive assertion in a way not warranted by the data of the particular person making it, of that which isn’t true, although he believes it to be true;
  2. Any breach of responsibility which, with out an intent to deceive, beneficial properties a bonus of the particular person committing it, or anybody claiming below him, by deceptive one other to his prejudice, or to the bias, or to the bias of anybody claiming below him ;
  3. Inflicting, nevertheless innocently, a celebration to an settlement, to make a mistake as to the substance of the factor which is the topic of settlement.

A false assertion made with none intention to deceive ends in misrepresentation. That is important that the one who made the assertion should imagine that it’s true.

Part 17 of the Indian Contract Act, offers two necessities to show that an act is fraud

  1. An individual ought to make a false assertion having the information that the details are false
  2. The second situation is that there ought to be a wrongful intention to deceive the opposite social gathering

There ought to be an lively concealment of truth which was the responsibility of the particular person to disclose. Fraud takes place at any time when one particular person causes one other to behave on a false perception which he doesn’t himself imagine to be true.

The illustration ought to be a truth not an opinion although in some instances the opinion is likely to be handled as truth, it ought to be such that it might have prevented an inexpensive man from coming into right into a contract. In a case of 2005 Lilly Kutty vs Scrutiny Committee a false certificates was obtained to take unfair benefit; it was held that fraud vitiates each solemn act.

To show in a case that fraud has taken place it should be proved that the defendant social gathering had prior information of the false assertion. Mere ignorance of fact which afterward seems to end in fraud will make the particular person liable. Even when the assertion is made by the particular person with none deliberate causes, absence of fact within the assertion will show him responsible.


In a contract typically there’s a responsibility to talk of 1 social gathering, lively concealment is a scenario the place this social gathering conceals the truth that they’ve an obligation to reveal. Energetic concealment and passive concealment are two various things, passive concealment refers to conditions of the previous when the social gathering had an obligation to talk and stay silent.

If a contract was shaped below circumstances involving lively concealment it may possibly render the contract void or voidable. The events to the contract have to consent this contract afterward to be able to make it legitimate. Additional the social gathering chargeable for lively concealment is likely to be held for civil mistaken and liable to pay fines.


When an individual makes a promise to a different with none intention to carry out it in future it ends in fraud. An instance could be taking loans with none intention to repay in future.


Mere silence in any scenario which may have an effect on the willingness of an individual to enter right into a contract just isn’t fraud, until circumstances come up that it turns into the responsibility of the one who is silent to talk. Non disclosure of a truth can’t end in fraud. We will perceive this with a case legislation in Shri Krishan vs. Kurukshetra College a candidate for LLB half 1 examination was wanting attendance and didn’t point out the identical in his examination type. The college authorities and head of legislation division didn’t pay a lot heed to this and didn’t ask for any additional data. On this case the Supreme Courtroom held that there was no fraud on the a part of candidate and the college had no energy to cancel his candidature on this floor.

Part 18 of the Indian Contract Act talks about misrepresentation as mentioned above right here we are going to focus on it clause by clause intimately.

The primary clause of part 18 talks of constructive assertion which leads us to interpret it in two ways-

1. Harmless Misrepresentation

It’s used to depict misrepresentation which has no component of fraud and Negligence in it.

2. Negligent Misrepresentation

It’s made when one misrepresents a truth baselessly with none grounds to imagine it to be true as occurred within the case of Derry vs. Peek. The Second of clause of part 18 was meant to satisfy the instances which do come to court docket for inquiries in different phrases “constructed fraud”. There isn’t any intention to deceive as such, however circumstances come up that make the social gathering which derived profit from the act be answerable to court docket. This assertion was noticed within the case of Oriental Financial institution company vs. John Fleming. One other factor to notice down is English books at all times referred to misrepresentation of details and never that of legislation; it was understood that misrepresentation of legislation is completed to be able to keep away from a contract.

If we attempt to work out the primary or the important thing variations between the 2 they’re

  1. Fraud is an intentional misrepresentation made to be able to deceive somebody, misrepresentation alternatively is an harmless assertion with none intention to deceive.
  2. Intention differentiates the 2, it is a crucial component as fraud is intentional whereas misrepresentation just isn’t
  3. The aggrieved social gathering in fraud has proper to sue however it isn’t so in misrepresentation
  4. The social gathering who made a fraudulent assertion can’t take the protection that the opposite social gathering had means to find the reality, in instances of misrepresentation this protection could be taken.

The principal distinction between fraud and misrepresentation is in a single case the particular person stating the details believes it to be true and within the different case, he believes it to be true. Intention to deceive is crucial in instances of fraud. In each the instances the contract could be averted however in fraudulent silence or misrepresentation contracts can’t be averted if the opposite social gathering had technique of discovering the reality with the assistance of unusual diligence.

Noorudeen vs. Umairathu Beevi

Noorudeen vs. Umairathu Beevi, is an instance the place the transaction was put aside afterward and found that it was carried out on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The defendant who was the son of plaintiff obtained a doc executed by the plaintiff describing it because the hypothecation deed of property. Truly it was a sale deed of plaintiff’s property, it was held on this case that plaintiff was a blind man and the consideration was an insufficient quantity for the property, the contract was executed by fraud and misrepresentation and subsequently put aside.

Sunidhi Singh


Sunidhi hails from Symbiosis Regulation Faculty, NOIDA and spends most of her time researching, studying and debating. Her Curiosity areas are legislation and coverage. For any clarifications, suggestions, and recommendation, you’ll be able to attain us at [email protected]

Scroll to Top