Tag: Breach of Contract

Supreme Court: Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contracts, Upholds IRCTC’s Catering Policy
28Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contracts, Upholds IRCTC’s Catering Policy

The Supreme Court held that an arbitral award which contravenes binding government policy circulars—incorporated into the parties' contracts—is patently illegal and in conflict with the public policy of India under Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. An arbitrator cannot rewrite contractual terms that reflect such policy. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from contracts for catering services on premium Indian Railways trains (Rajdhani, Shatabdi, Duronto). The Railway Board initially increased meal tariffs in 2013 but simultaneously introduced a cheaper "combo meal" to replace the second regular meal on long journeys. This combo meal was swiftly discontinued days later, and caterers were directed to serve a second regular meal instead, but were to be reimbu...
Read More
Specific Performance Upheld: Supreme Court Reinstates Decree in Property Dispute
15Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Specific Performance Upheld: Supreme Court Reinstates Decree in Property Dispute

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by interfering with the first appellate court's findings of fact, particularly regarding additional payment and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness. The Court reiterated that time is not ordinarily the essence in immovable property contracts and that acceptance of further payment post-deadline constitutes a waiver of the right to forfeit earnest money, making the suit for specific performance maintainable without a separate declaratory relief. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Annamalai, entered into a registered sale agreement dated 08.01.2010 with Saraswathi (D-1) and Dharmalingam (D-2) for two property items. The total consideration was Rs. 4,80,000, of which Rs. 4,70,000 was paid as a...
Read More
Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation Issues
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation Issues

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that the underlying claim for recovery of money was hopelessly barred by limitation, rendering the appointment of an arbitrator untenable in law. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a dispute arising from a partnership deed containing an arbitration clause. The petitioner, residing in the UK, entered into a partnership with the respondent on 20.09.2014, succeeding an earlier partnership involving the petitioner’s sister. The petitioner alleged that he paid substantial sums amounting to Rs. 2.31 crores, relying on a clause entitling him to 75% of profits from a property purchased on 04.05.2016, but received nothing. The partnership wa...
Read More
Supreme Court: Right to Cross-Examine Survives Even If Written Statement Is Not Filed
24Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Right to Cross-Examine Survives Even If Written Statement Is Not Filed

The Supreme Court held that the mandatory 120-day period for filing a written statement in a commercial suit was extended by its COVID-19 limitation orders. Crucially, it ruled that even if a written statement is not filed, the defendant’s fundamental right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses is not forfeited, as procedural rules must serve substantive justice. Facts Of The Case: In 2019, M/s Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. appointed M/s Aroush Motors as a dealer for CFMOTO motorcycles. The plaintiff invested significant sums in security deposits, showroom setup, and initial stock. The business was disrupted when a government ban on BS-IV vehicles took effect in April 2020, and the defendant failed to supply promised upgrade kits. Consequently, the plaintiff terminated the dealer...
Read More
No Waiver Without Clear Intent: Supreme Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award for Violating ‘No Oral Modification’ Clause
27Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Waiver Without Clear Intent: Supreme Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award for Violating ‘No Oral Modification’ Clause

This Supreme Court judgment underscores the narrow scope of judicial intervention under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It affirms that an arbitral award can be set aside if it violates the fundamental policy of Indian law, principles of natural justice, or the terms of the contract, or if it exhibits patent illegality or perversity that shocks the conscience of the court. The Tribunal must adjudicate within the contractual framework and cannot rewrite the agreement. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose between SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation, an EPC contractor, and GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd., the project owner, concerning the construction of thermal power plants in Odisha. Following delays and disagreements, SEPCO demobilized from the site ...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules on Power Theft: Generator Must Pay Full Compensation for Diverted Electricity
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Power Theft: Generator Must Pay Full Compensation for Diverted Electricity

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that compensation for wrongful diversion of electricity under a Power Purchase Agreement is distinct from the reimbursement of fixed charges. The Court held that the beneficiary is entitled to both remedies concurrently, reinforcing the 'proportionate principle' and preventing unjust enrichment by the power generator. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a 1996 Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB, later GUVNL) and Essar Power Limited (EPL). EPL's plant had a total capacity of 515 MW, with 300 MW allocated to GEB and 215 MW to its sister concern, Essar Steel Limited (ESL). The core issue arose when EPL began supplying more power to ESL from GUVNL's allocated 58% share, violating the ag...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Property Dispute, Says Mere Breach of Contract Isn’t Cheating
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Property Dispute, Says Mere Breach of Contract Isn’t Cheating

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, holding that mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence absent proof of dishonest intent at the inception. The allegations disclosed only a civil dispute, and continuing criminal prosecution amounted to an abuse of the process of the court. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Arshad Neyaz Khan, entered into an agreement to sell his property to the complainant, Md. Mustafa, in February 2013 for a consideration of Rs. 43,00,000, out of which an advance of Rs. 20,00,000 was paid. Nearly eight years later, in January 2021, the complainant filed a criminal complaint alleging that the appellant had failed to either transfer the property or refund the advance amount, accusing him of cheating, crimin...
Read More
Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Criminal Law to Settle Civil Disputes, Quashes Proceedings
4Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Criminal Law to Settle Civil Disputes, Quashes Proceedings

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC, ruling that a mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating. The essential ingredient of a dishonest intention at the inception of the agreement was absent. Allegations of supplying non-conforming goods disclosed only a civil dispute, not a criminal offense, making the FIR unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a business transaction dated 12.12.2017, where M/s Soma Stone Crusher (complainant) agreed to purchase a 'sand rrulla machine' from M/s Saini Engineering Works, run by Sarabjit Singh. An advance of ₹5,00,000 was paid via cheque. The complainant alleged that the appellant, Paramjeet Singh, acting on behalf of his brother, had assured that the machine would meet specific specifications (...
Read More
Supreme Court Backs Discom: Upholds Right to Encash Bank Guarantee in Delayed Solar Project
29Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Discom: Upholds Right to Encash Bank Guarantee in Delayed Solar Project

The Supreme Court held that the Power Purchase Agreement's explicit terms govern the parties' rights. The encashment of the performance bank guarantee was valid as the developer failed to seek an extension under the contractual mechanism or issue a mandatory Force Majeure notice. Regulatory commissions cannot rewrite the contractual risk allocation or grant remedies outside the agreed framework. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) executed between Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (CESC) and Saisudhir Energy Pvt. Ltd. for a 10 MW solar power project. The PPA stipulated that the developer was to achieve the Commercial Operation Date (COD) within 12 months, preceded by fulfilling certain Conditions Precedent within 240 days. A critical pr...
Read More
Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Over Tainted Agreement: Readiness to Pay Not Enough
23Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Over Tainted Agreement: Readiness to Pay Not Enough

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of specific performance, ruling that a material alteration in the sale agreement—visibly apparent from the use of different ink for a property's description—vitiated the contract. Courts are not always obligated to seek expert opinion under Section 73 of the Evidence Act when such an alteration is plainly discernible upon a mere perusal of the document itself. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiff-appellant, Syed Basheer Ahmed, entered into a sale agreement dated July 15, 1984, with the first defendant for the purchase of two properties: Item No. 1 (owned by the first defendant) and Item No. 2 (owned by a third party). The total agreed consideration was Rs. 56,000/-, with an advance of Rs. 1,000/- paid. The agreement stipulated that the sale deed was to be ...
Read More