Delhi High Court : only in cases where damage or loss is difficult or impossible to prove that the liquidated amount named in the contract, if a genuine pre-estimate of damage or loss, can be awarded.

Bhopal Dal Udyog v. Food Corporation Of India (Delhi High Court, Division Bench, decided on 04.01.2022), 

The Arbitrator had awarded Liquidated Damages (LD) in favour of the Respondent, relying on clause of the Agreement between the parties, in addition to the actual loss suffered by the Respondent (which was proved), as a result of the breach of Contract by the Appellant. 

The Court observed as follows:-

1. Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that when a sum has been named in a contract, as the amount to be paid on breach, the party complaining of breach is entitled, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused, to receive from the party in breach, reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named. (Commonly called LD)

2. Such a sum named in the contract, is payable only if it is a genuine pre-estimate of damages, fixed by both parties, and found to be such by Court/arbitrator.

3. The expression "whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby" means that where it is possible to prove actual damage or loss, such proof is not dispensed with. It is only in cases where damage or loss is difficult or impossible to prove that the liquidated amount named in the contract, if a genuine pre-estimate of damage or loss, can be awarded.

4. In the Present case as the actual damages suffered by the respondent were proven and accepted by the #Arbitrator, LD over and above such actual damages could not have been awarded.

(Reliance placed on Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA & Anr., (2015) 4 SCC 136)

On the basis of above, the Arbitral Award was set aside to the limited extent of the Liquidated Damages being awarded over and above the actual damages.

Supreme Court - All agreements of sale are bilateral contracts as promises are made by both - the vendor agreeing to sell and the purchaser agreeing to purchase. agreement of sale signed by the vendor alone and delivered and accepted by the purchaser is a valid contract, however, no practice of the purchaser alone signing an agreement of sale.

 In the Matter of  Alka Bose vs Parmatma Devi & Ors Complaint no. CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 6197 OF 2000  decided on 17.12.2008 before Supreme Court of India

The defendant submitted that a contract for sale, like any other contract, is bilateral in nature under which both vendor and the purchaser have rights and obligations. It is submitted that an agreement for sale being a contract for sale, creating a right in the purchaser to obtain a deed of conveyance in terms of the agreement under which, the vendor agrees to convey to the purchaser, and the purchaser agrees to purchase, the subject-matter of the agreement for an agreed consideration, subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the said agreement, it is bilateral. It is therefore contended that an agreement of sale is neither complete nor enforceable unless it is signed by both parties.

The apex court observed that

In India, an agreement of sale signed by the vendor alone and delivered to the purchaser, and accepted by the purchaser, has always been considered to be a valid contract. In the event of breach by the vendor, it can be specifically enforced by the purchaser. There is, however, no practice of the purchaser alone signing an agreement of sale.

An agreement of sale comes into existence when the vendor agrees to sell and the purchaser agrees to purchase,for an agreed consideration on agreed terms.

• It can be oral.

• It can be by exchange of communications which may or may not be signed.

• It may be by a single document signed by both parties.

• It can also be by a document in two parts, each party signing one copy and then exchanging the signed copy as a consequence of which the purchaser has the copy signed by the vendor and a vendor has a copy signed by the purchaser.

• Or it can be by the vendor executing the document and delivering it to the purchaser who accepts it.

• Section 10 of the Act provides all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent by the parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not expressly declared to be void under the provisions of the Contract Act.

Supreme Court - Time is not an Essence of Contract, However, if the parties agreed to a specified time in the agreement to perform their part of the Contract, then time is the essence of the Contract and parties shall adhere to the same.

 In the Matter of  I.S.Sikandar (D) By Lrs.& Ors vs K.Subramani & Ors Complaint no. Civil Appeal no. 7306 OF 2013 // (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20367 of 2009) decided on  29.08.2013 before Supreme Court of India

The Court Observed that.

This position of law is well settled by this Court in the Constitution Bench judgment in Smt.Chand Rani (dead) by LRs. Vs. Smt. Kamal Rani(dead) by LRs. Appeal (civil)  3377 of 1979 decided on 18/12/1992 ; wherein this Court has held that it is a well settled principle of law, that in a case of sale of immovable property, time is not the essence of the contract. 

However, If the parties agreed to a specified time in the agreement to perform their part of the contract, then time is the essence of the contract and parties shall adhere to the same.

The Court also relied on the statement in Chand Rani Vs. Smt. Kamal Rani(supra) case whereas it was mentioned 

“It has to be ascertained whether under the terms of the contract the parties named a specific time within which completion was to take place, really and in substance it was intended that it should be completed within a reasonable time. An intention to make time the essence of the contract must be expressed in unequivocal language.””

x

Karnataka Rera - No Compensation is payable for mental agony in case of breach of a contract.

 In the Matter of Suman Rupanagudi vs. Adarsh Developers Complaint no. CMP/190912/0004118 decided on 31.01.2020  before Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Karnataka RERA tried to clear this ambiguity by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Union of India. (2000)6 SCC113 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering a case of breach of contract under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, held that no damages are payable for mental agony in case of breach of a contract.

In Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta,AIR1994 SC 787 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the liability for mental agony had been fixed not within the realms of contract but under the principles of administrative law.

In view of the same, Karnataka RERA refused to grant relief towards mental agony

Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has refused to differentiate between an investor in a housing project and a homebuyer

 The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) in the matter of Kamal Aggarwal V/s Sakla Enterprises Complaint No. CC006000000171603 has refused to differentiate between an investor in a housing project and a homebuyer and has directed a developer to honour contractual obligations.

Complete order can be seen at 

https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/document/C561FAQHuOUtaDbRVDA/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1610797082012?e=1618682400&v=beta&t=4MhyLgKZFWL_FzuePp0A6QXc8nKPXC50OMKONxECUKw

In the Absence of Builder Buyer agreement, the Allotment letter if having all the Important details will serve as valid Contract and the complainant can ask for the refund under section 18 also.

 In the Matter of Nikhil Chopra V/s JVPD Properties Pvt. Ltd. Complaint number CC005000000001348 The Maha RERA observed That 

• “The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 18 to claim refund of his amount from the respondents with interest. 

• The respondents issued a letter dated 24.07.2017 expressing their inability to complete the project. 

• The respondents in their reply contended that the complainant is an investor and therefore, the Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. 

• The respondent further contended that for the application under Section 18 of RERA, there must be agreement for sale and the complainant does not have it. 

• The Authority observed that lt is a fundamental principle of law of contract that once a proposal is accepted; it becomes a contract, provided  it is coupled with lawful consideration and lawful object and it is not specifically barred by any statute. There can be oral agreement for sale or it can be also in written form. in this case the complainant has relied upon an allotment letter, admittedly issued by the respondents on 11.07.2014.

• The Authority observed that It is the contention of the respondents that there is no concluded contract. Hence, it is necessary to look at the allotment letter. On its perusal it becomes clear that the complainant agreed to purchase the flats and the respondents agreed to sell them for the consideration mentioned in the letter.

•  The respondents agreed to deliver the possession of the flats within 42 months from receipt of final commencement certificate from plinth level. All these terms and conditions have been accepted and signed by both the parties. Therefore, there remains no doubt that it is a concluded contract which has taken place on 11.07.2014.” 

• The Authority therefore ordered 

• “The respondents shall refund the amount mentioned in Para-l0 of this order.

• The respondents shall pay the complainant Rs. 20,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.. 

• The respondents shall pay simple interest at the rate of 10.05% from the dates of receipts of the amount till they are refunded.. 

• The charge of aforesaid amount shall be on the respondents’ property under project bearing C.T.S. No. 634/5 and 64D “S” ward of village Tirandaz, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai, till the complainant’s claim is satisfied.”

x

Courts will not enforce and will strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract when flat purchaser had no option but to sign on the dotted line

In the Matter of Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghavan 2019 (5) SCC 725,

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that the courts will not enforce and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between the parties, who are not equal in bargaining power. A term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchaser had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by a builder. Further, incorporation of one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flat by the builder.

In the said case, the Buyer had deposited Rs. 4,83,25,280/- with the Builder for purchase of a flat in Araya Complex, Gurugram (the ‘Flat’), but the Builder had failed to obtain the occupancy certificate within the stipulated time period of 39 months with a grace period of 180 days and therefore, could not offer possession of the Flat to the Buyer within the time period agreed by them vide Agreement dated 08.05.2012.As a result, the Buyer had approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), whereby the NCDRC directed the Builder to pay compensation to the Buyer and also awarded interest for a part of the period of delay, vide Order dated 23.10.2018.Meanwhile, the Builder obtained the Occupancy Certificate on 23.07.2018 and issued a Possession Letter to the Buyer on 28.08.2018. But the Buyer refused to accept the same as they were no longer interested to buy the said Flat and were looking for a flat elsewhere. Aggrieved by the Order dated 23.10.2018 of the NCDRC, the Builder filed an appeal before the Supreme Court (‘Appeal’).

x

The Supreme Court held that terms of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. It further held that incorporation of one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the builder. The supreme court further added that The Builder cannot compel the Buyer to purchase the Flat after causing an inordinate delay of almost 3 years in handing over the possession of the Flat to the Buyer and the builder cannot seek to bind the Buyer with one-sided and unfair contractual terms of the Agreement.

Thus, the Apex Court directed the Builder to pay compensation and interest to the Buyer for the entire period of delay caused in handing over possession of the Flat to the Buyer.

The Apex court also was of view that “ It is difficult to accept the argument that RERA is a special enactment which deals with real estate development projects and must therefore be given precedence over the Code which is only a general enactment.  At the time of introduction of the explanation to Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC, Parliament was aware of RERA and applied some of the definition provisions to the Code.” It also held that “The fact that RERA is in addition to and not in derogation of other laws (Section 88) makes it clear that remedies under RERA to allottees were intended to be additional and not exclusive remedies”.

The Supreme court was of view that  “By the process of harmonious construction, RERA and Code must be held to co-exist and in the event of a clash, RERA must give way to the Code.  RERA therefore cannot be held to be a special statute which in the case of a conflict, would override the general statute viz. the Code.”

Letter of allotment would tantamount to an agreement for sale

 In the Matter of Manjeet Singh dhaliwal versus Jvpd properties private Limited,the Maharashtra appellate Tribunal held that even a letter of allotment would tantamount to an agreement for sale under Section 2(c) of the ACT if the letter contains the description of the property, payment schedule and costs requisition of permissions, obligation to complete the project and getting Clarity to title. since nothing further was left to be agreed upon, the contract was concluded.

In the absence of completely formulated contract, earnest money is refundable.

In the Matter of  Commr of HR & CE Deptt v. S. Muthekrishnan AIR 2012 Mad 43, The Madras High Court observed that if the contract is not completely formulated between the parties but the earnest money is paid, the other party is not entitled to forfeit the amount and it stands refundable.