https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365358 A change in RBI policy and the resulting fall in profit margin did not amount to force majeure or frustration of contract. The Court applied a narrow construction of the force majeure clause, which covered policy restrictions only if they prevented performance of contractual obligations, and held that Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act was not attracted because the contract had not become impossible or unlawful to perform. Economic loss, reduced profitability, or commercial unviability alone do not discharge contractual obligations or justify interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. en-us Tue, 07 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Aug 2018 17:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365358 A change in RBI policy and the resulting fall in profit margin did not amount to force majeure or frustration of contract. The Court applied a narrow construction of the force majeure clause, which covered policy restrictions only if they prevented performance of contractual obligations, and held that Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act was not attracted because the contract had not become impossible or unlawful to perform. Economic loss, reduced profitability, or commercial unviability alone do not discharge contractual obligations or justify interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365358