https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766040 A contractual claim for refund of the plant investment was rejected where the agreement provided a distinct performance guarantee, liquidated damages, and a separate rectification or replacement remedy. Because the claimant did not invoke the replacement mechanism or incur replacement cost, it could not reframe the loss as compensation for the whole plant after alleging total failure. Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act confined recovery to reasonable compensation within the contractual limit, so the additional claim beyond the liquidated damages already awarded was disallowed. en-us Fri, 14 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:48:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766040 A contractual claim for refund of the plant investment was rejected where the agreement provided a distinct performance guarantee, liquidated damages, and a separate rectification or replacement remedy. Because the claimant did not invoke the replacement mechanism or incur replacement cost, it could not reframe the loss as compensation for the whole plant after alleging total failure. Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act confined recovery to reasonable compensation within the contractual limit, so the additional claim beyond the liquidated damages already awarded was disallowed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766040