Supreme Court: Rejects Speculative Damages of Rs. 68.15 Lakhs in Machinery Performance Dispute, Upholds High Court’s Interpretation of Liquidated Damages Under the Contract

Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the High Court’s decision. The Court ruled that the claim of Rs. 68.15 lakhs for damages due to non-performance of machinery was speculative and not supported by the terms of the agreement. The Court emphasized that the appellant was confined to the liquidated damages expressly stipulated in the contract, and no further damages could be awarded without adherence to the terms. The appellant failed to exercise its right under Clause 21 of the agreement to replace the defective machinery.

Facts:

1. The Agreement:
   • On November 17, 1992, the appellant and the respondent entered into an agreement for the design, manufacture, and supply of machinery for a continuous fermentation process.
   • The total price was Rs. 93.20 lakhs, and the machinery was to be delivered within five and a half months.
   • The machinery was to guarantee a yield of 280 liters of alcohol per metric tonne of molasses. However, the supplied machinery failed to achieve this.
2. Performance Issues:
   • The machinery’s trial runs yielded significantly less than the guaranteed output, with a maximum yield of only 237.68 liters per metric tonne of molasses.
   • The appellant issued a legal notice in 1994, claiming Rs. 237.83 lakhs in damages due to the failure of the plant to perform as guaranteed.
3. Arbitration and Awards:
   • The appellant invoked the arbitration clause, and an initial award was passed in 1999.
   • The High Court set aside parts of the award, limiting damages to those explicitly provided under the agreement.
   • After remand, the second arbitral award included a grant of Rs. 68.15 lakhs as damages for non-performance. This amount was subsequently set aside by the High Court as speculative.

Issues:

1. Was the appellant entitled to claim Rs. 68.15 lakhs for damages due to the non-performance of machinery?
2. Could the appellant claim amounts beyond the liquidated damages expressly provided in the agreement?
3. Did the appellant’s failure to exercise its right to replace the defective machinery under Clause 21 of the agreement bar further claims?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The appellant argued that the machinery was unusable and failed to meet guaranteed performance levels.
2. The damages of Rs. 68.15 lakhs reflected the loss suffered due to the non-performance of the plant.
3. The claim for liquidated damages and breach of warranty were separate and independent, and the arbitral tribunal rightly awarded both.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The respondent contended that the claim for Rs. 68.15 lakhs was speculative and based on calculations not supported by the contract.
2. Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act limits damages to those stipulated in the agreement, and the appellant’s claim exceeded this limit.
3. The appellant did not invoke its right to replace the defective machinery under Clause 21 and could not claim damages for a refund of costs.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act:
   • Section 74 limits compensation to reasonable damages not exceeding the amount stipulated in the contract. The appellant was bound by this provision as liquidated damages were explicitly provided for in the agreement.
2. Clauses in the Agreement:
   • Clause 8 outlined the performance guarantee, including a minimum yield of 280 liters per metric tonne of molasses.
   • Clause 15 stipulated liquidated damages for delays, non-performance of machinery, and other breaches.
   • Clause 21 allowed the appellant to replace defective machinery and recover costs from the respondent. However, the appellant did not exercise this right.
3. Nature of the Claim:
   • The appellant’s claim of Rs. 68.15 lakhs was framed as a refund of the cost of the plant but was not based on any specific breach or provision of the contract.
   • The claim was speculative and lacked evidentiary support, as observed by the High Court.

Precedent Analysis:

The Court referred to Madnani Construction Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (2010), which limits judicial interference in arbitral awards. The Court also applied the principle from Section 74 of the Contract Act, emphasizing the limitation of damages to those expressly agreed upon in the contract.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. The agreement explicitly provided for liquidated damages for non-performance, and the appellant already received those damages.
2. The appellant’s claim for Rs. 68.15 lakhs was speculative, as it was framed as a refund for the cost of the plant and machinery, which was not based on any contractual provision.
3. Clause 21 gave the appellant the right to replace defective machinery and recover costs, but the appellant did not exercise this option. Instead, it retained the plant, making the claim for Rs. 68.15 lakhs untenable.
4. The High Court correctly rejected the claim, finding no basis for damages beyond the liquidated damages stipulated in the contract.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal and confirming that the appellant’s claims were confined to the liquidated damages expressly provided in the contract.

Implications:

1. This judgment reinforces the principle that parties to a contract are bound by the terms of their agreement and cannot claim damages beyond what is expressly stipulated.
2. It underscores the importance of adhering to contractual remedies, such as rectification or replacement, before claiming additional damages.
3. The ruling provides clarity on the application of Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, emphasizing reasonable compensation within contractual limits.
4. This decision sets a precedent for similar disputes involving performance guarantees in contracts, emphasizing the need for claims to be well-supported and within the bounds of the agreement.

Also Read – Karnataka High Court Upholds Forfeiture of EMD: “Forfeiture Justified When Successful Bidder Fails to Enter into Contract as per Tender Conditions and Cannot Expect Refunds”