Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.35 seconds)Section 73 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Fateh Chand vs Balkishan Das on 15 January, 1963
"But, as we have already mentioned, we do not propose to go into
those aspects in the case on hand. As mentioned earlier, the
appellants never raised any contention that the forfeiture of the
amount amounted to a penalty or that the amount forfeited is so
large that the forfeiture is bad in law. Nor have they raised any
contention that the amount of deposit is so unreasonable and
therefore forfeiture of the entire amount is not justified. The
decision in Maula Bux's [1970]1SCR928 had no occasion to
consider the question of reasonableness or otherwise of the earnest
deposit being forfeited. Because, from the said judgment it is clear
that this Court did not agree with the view of the High Court that
the deposits made, and which were under consideration, were paid
as earnest money. It is under those circumstances that this Court
RFA No.1061/2017 Page 27 of 42
proceeded to consider the applicability of Section 74 of the
Contract Act. (At page 143)"
Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills & Ors vs Tata Air-Craft Ltd on 28 October, 1969
"66. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost
sight of. If damages cannot be calculated and the terms of the contract
provides therefor only for penalty by way of liquidated damages,
having regard to the provisions contained in Section 74 of the Indian
Contract Act a reasonable sum only could be recovered which need
not in all situations even be the sum specified in the contract. (See
Maula Bux vs. Union of India and Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills vs.
Tata Air Craft Ltd.)
Roshan Lal vs The Delhi Cloth And General Mills ... on 10 August, 1910
70. Forfeiture of earnest money under a contract for sale of property
whether movable or immovable, if the amount is reasonable, would
not fall within Section 74. That has been opined in several cases.
(See Kunwar Chiranjit Singh v. Har Swarup; Roshan Lal v. Delhi
Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.; Mohd. Habib-ullah v. Mohd.
Shafi ; Bishan Chand v. Radha Kishan Das.) These cases have
explained that forfeiture of a reasonable amount paid as earnest money
RFA No.1061/2017 Page 32 of 42
does not amount to imposing a penalty. But if forfeiture is of the
nature of penalty, Section 74 applies.
Section 75 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
M/S. Kailash Nath Associates vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 9 January, 2015
These
observations have cross-reference to Para 34 of the judgment of Kailash
Nath Associates's case (supra) where with reference to the para of Fateh
Chand's case (supra) it is held that the language of Section 74 of the
Contract Act that 'whether or not damage or loss is proved to have been
caused by breach' is the language that such language only discharges proof
of actual loss but that does not justify award of compensation where in
consequence of breach no injury/loss has at all resulted.
Maula Bux vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 19 August, 1969
40. From the above, it is clear that this Court held that Maula
Bux's case was not, on facts, a case that related to earnest money.
Consequently, the observation in Maula Bux that forfeiture of earnest
money under a contract if reasonable does not fall within Section 74,
and would fall within Section 74 only if earnest money is considered a
penalty is not on a matter that directly arose for decision in that case.