| COURT: | Supreme Court |
| CORAM: | Ajay Rastogi J, Mohan M. Shantagoudar J, N. V. Ramana J |
| SECTION(S): | Contract Act |
| GENRE: | Other Laws |
| CATCH WORDS: | Doctrine of Force Majeure, Frustration of Contract |
| COUNSEL: | - |
| DATE: | May 11, 2020 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | May 16, 2020 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | - |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| Doctrine of "Force Majeure" & "Frustration of Contract": Under Indian contract law, the consequences of a force majeure event are provided for u/s 56 of the Contract Act, which states that on the occurrence of an event which renders the performance impossible, the contract becomes void thereafter. When the parties have not provided for what would take place when an event which renders the performance of the contract impossible, then S. 56 of the Contract Act applies. The effect of the doctrine of frustration is that it discharges all the parties from future obligations (Imp judgements referred) | |
From the aforesaid discussion, it can be said that the contract was based on a fixed rate. The party, before entering the tender process, entered the contract after mitigating the risk of such an increase. If the purpose of the tender was to limit the risks of price variations, then the interpretation placed by the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be said to be possible one, as it would completely defeat the explicit wordings and purpose of the contract. There is no gainsaying that there will be price fluctuations which a prudent contractor would have taken into margin, while bidding in the tender. Such price fluctuations cannot be brought under Clause 23 unless specific language points to the inclusion.
Recent Comments