In which case it was laid that it is not necessary that the consideration should move from the promisee himself?

The Court held that it is not necessary that the consideration should move from the promisee himself as laid down under section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which says that ‘Consideration may be given by the promise or anyone on behalf of promisee. Taylor v. Caldwell: The doctrine of impossibility/frustration through destruction of the subject matter was established in this case. NAFED v. Alimenta S.A.: A foreign award was declared as unenforceable on the ground that one of the provisions of the Agreement in question was hit by Section 32 of the Indian Contract Act and thus violative of public policy of India. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. Selfridge & Co. Ltd .: Privity of contract- only parties to a contract can sue for a breach of the contract.