TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether time was of the essence of the contract and whether the extensions granted by the purchaser diluted the contractual stipulation as to delivery time; (ii) Whether liquidated damages could be retained or imposed without proof of actual loss and whether the arbitral award was liable to be interfered with under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Issue (i): Whether time was of the essence of the contract and whether the extensions granted by the purchaser diluted the contractual stipulation as to delivery time.
Analysis: The contract had clauses providing for extension of time as well as for liquidated damages, and the conduct of the parties showed that delivery dates were repeatedly extended. Reading the contract as a whole, the stipulation as to time could not be treated as rigidly determinative in isolation. The existence of an extension mechanism and the purchaser's own grant of extensions indicated that the contractual arrangement did not treat time as an inflexible essence in the manner suggested by the challenge to the award.
Conclusion: Time was not treated as the essence of the contract in a manner that would justify setting aside the arbitral finding.
Issue (ii): Whether liquidated damages could be retained or imposed without proof of actual loss and whether the arbitral award was liable to be interfered with under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Analysis: Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 permits reasonable compensation not exceeding the stipulated sum, but the arbitral tribunal adopted a view that, in the factual matrix, actual loss had to be shown for the extended period during which liquidated damages had been waived. The Court held that this was a plausible construction of the contract and of the governing law, especially because the purchaser had earlier waived liquidated damages and the contract did not clearly authorise their reimposition for later extensions. The award did not disclose perversity, patent illegality, or a ground warranting interference within the narrow limits of Section 34 or appellate scrutiny under Section 37.
Conclusion: The award could not be interfered with, and the challenge to retention of damages failed.
Final Conclusion: The arbitral award was restored and the interference by the courts below was set aside, leaving the award in favour of the contractor intact.
Ratio Decidendi: In a contract containing extension clauses and a history of waiver of liquidated damages, the question whether time is of the essence and whether damages are recoverable must be answered on a composite reading of the contract and conduct of the parties, and an arbitral view that no interference is warranted unless the award is perverse or patently illegal lies within the permissible scope of judicial review.
TaxTMI 
