Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.30 seconds)Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Fateh Chand vs Balkishan Das on 15 January, 1963
This imposes a duty upon the court to award compensation
according to the settled principles. The phraseology of
Section 74 was held to dispense with the proof of actual loss
or damages but it did not justify the award of compensation
when in consequence of the breach no legal injury at all has
resulted. It was, thus, clearly held that a plaintiff has to prove
a loss suffered by him in consequence of the breach of
OMP (Comm) No.130/21 M/s ATC Foods P.Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 21 of 27
contract committed by the defendant. This legal position laid
down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is
good law till date and, thus, any judgment of the Supreme
Court of a Bench constituted of lesser number of Judges
would, thus, have to be read in the context of the seminal
pronouncement.
M/S. Kailash Nath Associates vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 9 January, 2015
In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai
v. Offshore Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai 2015 SCC OnLine Bom
4146, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court following the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash Nath Associates
(supra) had observed that unless loss is pleaded and proved,
where it capable of being proved, it cannot be recovered. There
cannot be any windfall in favour of the respondent to recover
liquidated damages even if no loss is suffered or proved.
Section 73 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Maula Bux vs Union Of India on 19 August, 1969
In Maula Bux V. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 554,
the forfeiture of security was upheld by the High Court, the
amount forfeited being held as not unreasonable under
Section 74 of the Contract Act. The Supreme Court set aside
the order of the High Court accepting the plea that the loss
suffered by the respondent therein was capable of being
measured and they could not seek protection under the garb
of Section 74 of the Contract Act. Since the respondent had
led no evidence that it had suffered loss, it was held that the
amount could not be forfeited.