Quantum valebant :
A contrary view was taken in other cases. [Raman v. Municipal Council, Kumbakonam, 30 Mad 290; Madura Municipal Council v. Veerana Kone,16 IC 890)]. In an Allahabad case, [Radha Krishna v. Municipal Board, Benares, 27 All 592], it was held that where a contract with a Municipal Board, which according to Section 40 of Act 15 of 1883 and Section 47, Local Act of 1900 must be executed in particular form, had not been so executed, no suit could be maintained against the Municipal Board in respect thereof, notwithstanding that there had been part performance of the contract and the plaintiff was claiming merely for the value of work done and of materials supplied, because a man cannot be allowed to do by indirect means what he is forbidden to do directly. [Municipal Board, Lucknow v. S.C. Deb, 1932 Oudh 193; contract void under Section 97, U.P. Municipal Act as being not under seal].
In a Madras case [Srivilliputtur Mun. Council v. Arunachala, 1933 Mad 332], it has been held on a review of authorities that when a contract is void for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 44 and 5 of the District Municipalities Act, Section 65, Contract Act, has no application and neither the principle rule of quantum meruit nor the principle of quantum valebant applies. There is no rule of law applicable to companies in general. Where according to Articles of a company a deed of mortgage is not required to be executed by the application of a company seal, a mere defect in the manner of affixing the seal would not render the document invalid. [Dehru Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. v. Jagmandan, 53 All 1009]. [Section 65, Contract Act].
