Bombay High Court: Liquidated Damages Cannot Be Automatically Enforced—Award of ₹6,01,000 Reduced to ₹3,00,000 as Plaintiff Failed to Prove Actual Loss, Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act Applied to Limit Compensation

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court partly allowed the appeal and reduced the compensation from ₹6,01,000 to ₹3,00,000. The Court ruled that awarding double the earnest money (₹6,00,000) was unjustified since the plaintiff did not provide evidence of actual loss. Instead, the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of ₹3,00,000 with 9% interest per annum, starting from October 1, 2001 (the date of legal notice).

The Court found that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to correctly apply Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which governs liquidated damages. It held that damages must be reasonable and cannot be automatically awarded just because they are mentioned in the contract.

Facts

1. The case concerned a dispute over the sale of agricultural land at Village Malkhambi, Taluka Malshiras, District Solapur.
2. On May 8, 2000, the owner, Vishnu Devaba Sabale, agreed to sell his land to the plaintiff for ₹9,80,000.
3. The plaintiff paid ₹3,00,000 as earnest money, and the agreement stated that the remaining ₹6,80,000 was to be paid by January 15, 2001.
4. A receipt accompanying the agreement contained a clause stating that if the owner failed to execute the sale deed, he would return double the earnest money (₹6,00,000) to the plaintiff.
5. However, on June 27, 2000, the owner sold the land to his mother for ₹1,87,000, instead of executing the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff.
6. Feeling cheated, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit demanding ₹6,00,000 as liquidated damages.
7. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding ₹6,01,000 (₹6,00,000 + ₹1,000 as expenses) with 12% interest per annum from June 27, 2000.
8. The Appellate Court upheld the decision, leading to a Second Appeal in the Bombay High Court.

Issues

1. Did the lower courts err in awarding ₹6,00,000 as liquidated damages without properly applying Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?
2. Should interest be awarded for the period before the suit was filed?
3. What is the correct amount of compensation and interest the plaintiff is entitled to?

Petitioner’s Arguments (Defendants)

1. The agreement and receipt were not properly proved, and the courts erred in relying on them.
2. The plaintiff never sought specific performance of the agreement, which would have been the correct remedy if the contract was truly breached.
3. Under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, compensation must be explicitly claimed, and the plaintiff had not initially asked for damages.
4. Awarding ₹6,00,000 was excessive and punitive, as the plaintiff failed to prove actual financial loss.
5. Interest at 12% per annum was too high and should be reconsidered.

Respondent’s Arguments (Plaintiff)

1. The agreement and breach were clearly proven.
2. The clause in the receipt, which stated that double the earnest money would be refunded, was binding and enforceable.
3. The trial and appellate courts correctly held the defendants liable for ₹6,00,000.
4. The interest awarded at 12% per annum was justified.

Analysis of the Law

1. Sections 73 & 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

• Section 73 allows compensation for actual losses caused by a contract breach.
• Section 74 states that if a contract specifies a sum as damages for breach, the court can award only “reasonable compensation”—not necessarily the full amount stated in the contract.

The Supreme Court in ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705 held that:

• If a contract pre-estimates damages, no additional proof of loss is required.
• However, in Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA (2015) 4 SCC 136, the Supreme Court ruled that proof of loss is essential unless the loss is impossible to quantify.

2. Specific Relief Act, 1963

• Section 21 allows compensation in lieu of specific performance.
• Since the plaintiff did not ask for specific performance, his claim should have been assessed under the Contract Act instead.

3. Interest Act, 1978 & Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)

• Pre-suit interest can be awarded only from the date of legal notice (October 1, 2001), not from the date of the agreement (May 8, 2000).
• Interest rates should be based on prevailing bank rates, and 12% was too high.

Precedent Analysis

The lower courts relied on incorrect precedents, including:

1. Sukhdev Kaur v. Hoshiar Singh (2004 P&H 178) – Awarded double earnest money without assessing actual loss.
2. Surjit Kaur v. Naurata Singh (2000 SC 2927) – Supreme Court granted compensation but did not analyze Section 74.
3. Maulana Bux v. Union of India (1970 SC 1955) – Concerned forfeiture of earnest money, not compensation assessment.

The Supreme Court in Kailash Nath Associates (2015) clarified that compensation requires proof of loss, unless proving loss is impossible.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The plaintiff failed to provide evidence of actual financial loss due to non-execution of the sale deed.
2. The clause promising double the earnest money was not automatically enforceable.
3. Awarding ₹6,00,000 without assessing reasonableness was incorrect.
4. The proper remedy was a refund of the earnest money (₹3,00,000) with interest.
5. Interest should be calculated from October 1, 2001, the date of notice.

Conclusion

1. The appeal was partly allowed.
2. The award of ₹6,01,000 was reduced to ₹3,00,000.
3. Interest was reduced to 9% per annum.
4. The Executing Court was directed to calculate any deficit or excess deposits.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Courts must assess liquidated damages under Section 74 before awarding them.
2. Proof of loss is required unless damages were pre-estimated in a reasonable and justifiable manner.
3. Contractual penalty clauses are not automatically enforceable.
4. Interest rates must align with prevailing bank rates and legal provisions.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Rules ‘Halba’ and ‘Halbi’ Are Distinct Scheduled Tribes – Directs Caste Scrutiny Committee to Issue Validity Certificate for ‘Halbi’ Based on Pre-Constitutional Records and Ancestor’s Validity Certificate