Satyabrata Ghose vs Mugneeram Bangur & Co., And Another on 16 Nov 1953
Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR 44, 1954 SCR 310, AIR 1954 SUPREME COURT 44, 1993 CALLJ 336
Bench: B.K. Mukherjee, Vivian Bose, Natwarlal H. Bhagwati
Date of judgement:16/11/1953
Act
Indian Contract Act (IX of 1872), s. 56- Agreement to sell land-Doctrine of frustration- Applicability-Doctrine whether applicable in India- Scope of s. 56 Impossible meaning of- Agreement for sale of land-Buyer’s rights-English and Indian law.
Brief
This case is related to a land sale, and the central question before the court was whether unforeseen events that affected the essential part of the agreement would render it void. The doctrine of frustration of contracts applies when an act becomes impossible to perform or unlawful and falls under the purview of Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, of 1872. This section states that an agreement to do an act that becomes impossible or unlawful after the contract is made becomes void. In the Satyabrata v Mugneeram case, the Supreme Court of India provided valuable insights into the scope of Section 56 of the ICA, which is a crucial provision in Indian contract law.
The court clarified that the term “impossibility” should be interpreted in a practical sense rather than a literal sense. According to the court, if an act is impossible to perform in the real sense, then the contract may be deemed void. However, if the act is possible but becomes impracticable or commercially unfeasible due to unforeseen events, then the contract may not be void.
Furthermore, the court emphasized that it is not permissible to import English law into the statutory provisions of the Indian Contract Act. The court held that the principles of frustration under English law are narrower than those under Indian law, and therefore, English law cannot be applied to Indian cases.
In conclusion, the Satyabrata v Mugneeram case is a landmark case in Indian contract law as it provides a clear understanding of the doctrine of frustration of contracts under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and clarifies the interpretation of the term “impossibility.”
Fact
The company owned a large tract of land in Calcutta and started a scheme to develop it for residential purposes. The land was divided into different plots and the company entered into agreements with purchasers for the sale of these plots. At the time of sale, the company accepted a small amount of earnest money. The company was responsible for constructing roads and drains necessary for residential purposes. The plots would be given to the buyers after construction and payment of the balance amount.
Bejoy Krishna Roy entered into an agreement with the company on August 5th, 1941, paying an earnest money deposit of Rs. 101. On November 30th, 1941, the appellant was made the nominee of the land. However, the land was later requisitioned by the Collector, 24-Paragnas under Defence of India rules for military purposes. As a result, in November 1943, the company decided to cancel the agreement but gave the appellant the option of either taking the earnest money back or paying the balance money. The company assured the appellant that it would continue its work after the termination of the war. However, the appellant refused both options. Therefore, the appellant filed a lawsuit on January 18th, 1946, claiming that the company was bound to the terms of the agreement.
Issues
- Did the plaintiff have a locus standi for instituting the suit?
- Did the contract become frustrated under Section 56 of ICA?
- Does the English law of frustration apply in India?
Judgment
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a ruling that clarifies the applicability of the English principles of Frustration of Contract to the statutory provisions of the Indian Contract Act. The Court held that the judgment of the High Court based on this principle did not apply to the case at hand, and further stated that the performance of the contract in question had not become impossible.
The Court observed that the company had not yet commenced its work when the land was requisitioned, and therefore there was no disruption of work. Additionally, there was no time limit specified in the contract for the completion of the construction of the roads and drains. Notably, the trial court and the lower appellate court both unanimously agreed that the appellant was the legitimate assignee of Bejoy Krishna Roy concerning the latter’s rights in the lawsuit. This decision ultimately led the Court to allow the appeal.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s recent decision provides clarity on the application of the English principles of Frustration of Contract in the context of the Indian Contract Act. The Court’s ruling also confirms that the performance of the contract in question had not become impossible and that the appellant was the rightful assignee in the case.
SUPPORTING CASE
ALLURI NARAYAN MURTHY RAJU v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISHAKHAPATNAM
In the case of ALLURI NARAYAN MURTHY RAJU v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISHAKHAPATNAM, the parties had entered into a contract granting the petitioners leasehold rights for extracting sand from a river in Maddi Gram panchayat, Visakhapatnam district. However, the villagers of the area raised their concerns about the potential depletion of groundwater due to the quarry operations, which could adversely affect their irrigation channels. The villagers obtained a grant of an injunction by civil courts and initiated criminal cases against the petitioners.
Given the circumstances, the Andra Pradesh High Court decided that the contract had become unfeasible due to events beyond the control of the parties involved. Therefore, the doctrine of frustration was applied, and the contract was discharged. According to the second limb of section 56 of the Contract Act 1872, the contract stands discharged if the performance is extended by law invalidity or the subject matter of the contract is destroyed or does not happen, or if the performance is to be rendered personally, and the person dies or is disabled.
TAYLOR v. CALDWELL
In another case, TAYLOR v. CALDWELL, Caldwell rented a music hall to Taylor to organize a music concert for four days at a rate of one hundred pounds per day. Taylor had made all the necessary arrangements for the concert, but unfortunately, the hall was destroyed by fire just before the event, making it impossible to hold the concert. Taylor sought to recover the damages suffered by suing Caldwell. However, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not recover the damages suffered because the defendant was not at fault, and the concept of frustration was applicable.
ANALYSIS
In cases where time is a crucial factor in a contract, any delays in the performance of the contract may result in the contract being frustrated. However, in the given scenario, it was possible to continue the work after the termination of the war. Therefore, the contract was not considered void as it did not meet the criteria of being a frustrated contract. This implies that the parties involved can still fulfill the obligations of the contract once the external factors affecting the contract are no longer present.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
