10/27/2015

PrintFriendly.com:Printwebpages,createPDFs

Damagesunderindiancontractact
www.lawteacher.net /freelawessays/contractlaw/damagesunderindiancontractactlawessays.php

DAMAGESUNDERINDIANCONTRACTACT
Section73oftheContractActislaysdowntheprovisionrelatingtodamages.Itprovidesthattheparty,who
breachesacontract,isliabletocompensatetheinjuredpartyforanylossordamagecaused,duetothebreachof
contract.Forcompensationtobepayable,Twothingsshouldbetakenintoconsideration(i)Thelossordamage
shouldhavearisenasanaturalconsequenceofthebreach,or(ii)Itshouldhavebeensomethingthepartiescould
havereasonablyexpectedtoarisefromabreachofthecontract.Intheformercase,anobjectivetestwouldbe
appliedwhereasinthelattercaseasubjectivetestwouldbeapplied.Underthissection,theburdenofprooflieson
theinjuredparty.Thissection,however,providesthatcompensationshallnotbeawardedforanyremoteorindirect
losssustainedbytheparties.Section73alsoprovidesthatthesameprincipleswillapplyforbreachofaquasi
contractualobligation,i.e.intheeventthatanobligationresemblingthatcreatedbycontracthasnotbeen
discharged,theinjuredpartyisentitledtoreceivecompensationasifacontractualobligationhasbeenbreached.
DamagesunderSection73oftheActarecompensatoryandnotpenalinnature.Theexplanationtothissection
furtherprovidesthatinestimatingthelossordamagearisingfromabreachofcontract,theexistingcostof
remedyingtheinconveniencecausedmaybetakenintoaccount.
Therearetwoprinciplesregardingcompensationthatflowfromthissection.Firstlywheremoneycansubstitutethe
lossincurred,theaggrievedpartyistobeputinthesamesituation,asitwouldhavebeeninhadthecontractbeen
performed.Thisisqualifiedbythesecondprinciple,whichimposesadutyuponthedefaultingpartytotake
reasonablestepstomitigatetheconsequenceswhichariseasaresultofthebreach.
Intheeventthatlossissuffered,thecourthasthediscretiontoawardtheaggrievedpartynominaldamagesin
recognitionofhisright.Furtherdamagesmayalsobeawardedforlossoftheparty'spositiveorexceptionalinterests
inthecaseofcontractstobeperformedinthefuture.Improperrecessionofacontractmayalsoresultin
compensationforlossofprofitbeingawardedunderSection73aswasheldbytheSupremeCourtinthecaseof
DwarkaDasvStateofMadhyaPradesh.
InSitaramBindrabanvs.ChiranjanlalBrijlalitwasheldthatthepartiestoacontractcancreate,forthemselves,
specialrightsandobligationssuchasprovidingforthemselvesthemeasureofdamagesforbreach.ThePartiescan
alsoprovideinacontractthatintheeventofbreach,nocompensationwillbepayableexceptforrefundofamounts
paidandsuchatermwasheldtobeenforceableinSyedIsrarMasoodvs.StateofMadhyaPradesh.Withregardto
measureofdamagesforbreachofwarranty,inMangilalKarwavs.Shantibaiitwasheldthattheamount,whichput
theplaintiffinthepositioninwhichhewouldhavebeenifthecontracthadbeenfulfilled.
InEssoPetroleumCo.Ltd.vs.Mardonitwasheldthatwhereduringtheprenegotiationstageofacontract,theparty
whohasspecialknowledgeandexpertiseconcerningthesubjectmatterofnegotiation,makesaforecastbasedon
knowledgeandexpertisewithanintentiontoinducetheotherpartytoenterintoacontract,itisopentothecourtto
treattheforecastbeingnotonlyanexpressionofopinionbutacontinuingwarranty.Insuchacase,iftheestimate
turnsouttobemadenegligentlyandwhollyunsound,thepartymakingtheforecastcanbemadeliableforbreachof
warranty.InMurlidharChiranjilalvs.HarishchandraDwarkadastheSupremeCourtheldthattherearetwoprinciples
onwhichdamagesarecalculatedincaseofbreachofcontractofsaleofgoods.Firstly,hewhoprovedabreachofa
bargaintosupplywhathehascontractedtogetistobeplacedsofarasmoneycandoitinasgoodsituationasif
thecontracthasbeenperformed.Secondly,adutyisimposedontheplaintifftotakeallreasonablestepstomitigate
thelossconsequenttobreach,andheisdebarredhimfromclaiminganypartofthedamagewhichisduetoneglect
totakesuchsteps.
http://www.printfriendly.com/print/?source=site&url=http://www.lawteacher.net/freelawessays/contractlaw/damagesunderindiancontractactlawessays.p

1/6

10/27/2015

PrintFriendly.com:Printwebpages,createPDFs

InUnionofIndiavs.RamanIronFoundryitwasheldthatdamagesarethecompensationwhichaninjuredpartymay
beentitledtogetonadjudicationbycourtoflawbuthedoesnotgetthembyreasonofanyexistingobligationonthe
partoftheparty,inbreachofcontract,whohasnopecuniaryliabilitytillthecourthasdeterminedthequestionof
breachandtheamountofcompensationtherefore.Thecourtwillnotdeterminepreexistingliability.Further,since
thebreachofcontractdoesnotresultinanyexistingobligationbythepartycommittingbreach,therighttorecover
damagesisnotanactionableclaimandcannotbeassigned.

THERULERELATINGTOREMOTENESSOFDAMAGES
TherulerelatingtoremotenessofdamagewasfoundinHadleyvs.Baxendalewhereinitwasheldthatwheretwo
partieshavemadeacontractwhichoneofthemhasbroken,thedamagestheotherpartyoughttoreceiveinrespect
ofsuchbreachofcontractshouldbeeithersuchasmayfairlyandreasonablybeconsideredasarisingnaturallyi.e.
inaccordancewithusualcourseofthingsfromsuchbreachofcontractitselforsuchasmayreasonablybe
supposedtohavebeeninthecontemplationofbothpartiesatthetimetheymadethecontractastheprobableresult
ofbreachofit.Wherethespecialcircumstancesunderwhichthecontractwasactuallymadewerecommunicatedby
onepartytotheotherandwasthusknowntobothparties,thedamagesresultingfromsuchbreachwhichtheywould
reasonablycontemplatewouldbeamountofinjurywhichwouldordinarilyfollowfrombreachofcontractunderthe
specialcircumstancessoknowntothepartiesorcommunicated.Wherethespecialcircumstancesarewholly
unknowntothepartybreakingthecontract,heatthemostcanonlybesupposedtohavehadinhiscontemplation
theamountofinjurywhichwouldarisegenerallyandingreatmultitudeofcasesnotaffectedbyanyspecial
circumstancesfromsuchbreachofcontract.
InMLichaSetty&SonsLtd.vs.CoffeeBoardBangaloretheSupremeCourtheldthattheprincipleofmitigation
doesnotgiveanyrighttoapartyinbreachofcontractbutisaconceptthathastobeborneinassessingdamages.
Inthiscaseitwasheldthattheplaintiffmusttakeallreasonablestepstomitigatethelossandifhefailstodosohe
cannotclaimsuchlosswhichcouldhavebeenavoided.Theplaintiffisonlyrequiredtoactreasonablyandwhether
hehasdonesoornotisnotaquestionoflawbutaquestionoffactineachcase.Hemustactreasonablynotonlyin
hisowninterestbutalsointheinterestofthedefendantandlowerthedamagesbyactingreasonablyinthematter.
Incaseofbreachofcontract,theplaintiffisrequiredtodomorethanactinordinarycourseofbusinessandwherehe
isplacedinembarrassment,themeasureshetakestoextricatehimselfoughtnottobeweighedinnicescalesatthe
instanceofpartyinbreach.Theplaintiffisundernoobligationtodestroyhispropertyortoinjurehimselforhis
commercialreputationtoreducethedamagespayablebydefendant.

COMPENSATIONFORBREACHOFCONTRACTWHEREPENALTYISSTIPULATEDFOR
Section74oftheActdealswiththesituationwherethepartiestoacontractagreethatthecontractitselfwillstipulate
thepenaltyforthebreachofthecontracti.e.liquidateddamages.Themainprinciplebehindthissectionisto
promotecertaintyincommercialcontracts.Section74providesthatdamages,notexceedingtheamountstipulated
inthecontract,mustbegiventotheinjuredpartyonbreachofthecontract.Itfurtherprovidesthatsuchdamages
mustbegiventotheinjuredpartyirrespectiveofanyactuallossordamageprovedbythem.Theexplanationto
Section74distinguishesbetweenagenuinepreestimateofthedamagesandapenalty.Apenaltywouldbeasumof
money,whichisstipulatedinordertodissuadeapersonfrombreachingacontract.Whenacontractualobligationis
oneofdebt,theruleagainstapenaltywouldnotapplytothesumpayable.However,ifahigherrateofinterestis
payablefromthedateofdefault,thiswouldbeconstruedasapenalty.
Thisdistinctionbetweenestimateddamagesandapenaltyissignificantwhenenforcingone'srightsincourt.Inthe
former,thecourtsdonothavethediscretiontoquestiontheamountagreeduponasdamagesbytheparties.
However,inthecaseofapenaltythatisstipulated,eventhoughthecourtsmaynotrejecttheclaiminitsentirety,
theyhavethediscretiontoreduceanunconscionableamounttowhattheymayperceiveasreasonable.However,it
ispertinenttonotethatnoclaimofliquidateddamagesismaintainableunlessthepromiseeisprovedtohave
sustainedlossduetothedefaultofthepromisor.Onecannotcompensateapersonwhohasnotsufferedanylossor
http://www.printfriendly.com/print/?source=site&url=http://www.lawteacher.net/freelawessays/contractlaw/damagesunderindiancontractactlawessays.p

2/6

10/27/2015

PrintFriendly.com:Printwebpages,createPDFs

damage.Therefore,intheabsenceorproofofdamageforanybreachofobligations,nosumofmoneynamedina
contractcanbeclaimed.Theremaybecaseswheretheactuallossordamageisincapableofproof.Section74
exemptsapartyfromsuchresponsibilityandenableshimtoclaimcompensationinspiteofhisfailuretoprovethe
actualextentofthelossordamage,butthepartymustestablishthathehassufferedsomelossordamage.The
proofofthisbasicrequirementofloss/damageisnotdispensedwithbySection74.Itmerelydispenseswiththe
proofoftheactualloss/damage.Thecourts,insuchcaseswhereitisdifficulttoascertainthepreciseamountof
damages,havethediscretiontoawardreasonablecompensationtotheaggrievedparty.
TheSupremeCourthas,inMaulaBuxv.UnionofIndiaheldthat:
Aclaimantmayhavetoleadevidencetoprovetheactuallossordamageresultingfromthebreach,ifthe
adjudicatingauthoritywereoftheviewthatinthegivenfactsandcircumstances,compensationcanbe
calculatedinaccordancewiththesettledrules.
However,iftheadjudicatingauthoritywereoftheviewthatinthefactsandcircumstancesinquestion,itwillbe
impossiblefortheCourttoassessthecompensation,thentheCourtsmaytakeintoconsiderationthesum
namedbythepartiesifitberegardedasagenuinepreestimatebutnotifthesumnamedisinthenature
ofapenalty.
Thislatterprinciple(statedabove)hasbeenrecentlyreiteratedbytheSupremeCourtinONGCLtd.v.SawPipesthe
SupremeCourtheldthatInsomecontracts,itwouldbeimpossiblefortheCourttoassessthecompensationarising
frombreachandifcompensationcontemplatedisnotbywayofpenaltyorunreasonable,Courtcanawardthesame
ifitisgenuinepreestimatebythepartiesasthemeasureofreasonablecompensation.TheSupremeCourtheld
thatifthepartieshavepreestimatedsuchlossafterclearunderstanding,itwouldbetotallyunjustifiabletoarriveat
theconclusionthatthedefaultingpartyisnotliabletopaycompensation.TheCourtinthiscasealsoheld:
Termsofthecontractarerequiredtobetakenintoconsiderationbeforearrivingattheconclusionwhetherthe
partyclaimingthecompensationisentitledtothesame
Ifthetermsareclearandunambiguousstipulatingliquidateddamagesincaseofthebreachofthecontract,
unlessitisheldthatsuchestimateofdamages/compensationisunreasonableorisbywayofpenalty,the
partywhohascommittedthebreachisrequiredtopaysuchcompensationandthatiswhatisprovidedin
section73oftheContractAct.
Section74tobereadalongwithsection73and,therefore,ineverycaseofbreachofcontract,theperson
aggrievedbythebreachisnotrequiredtoproveactuallossordamagesufferedbyhimbeforehecanclaima
decree.Thecourtiscompetenttoawardreasonablecompensationincaseofbreachevenifnoactual
damageisprovedtohavebeensufferedinconsequenceofthebreachofthecontract.
Insomecontracts,itwouldbeimpossibleforthecourttoassessthecompensationarisingfrombreachandif
thecompensationcontemplatedisnotbywayofpenaltyorunreasonable,thecourtcanawardthesameifitis
agenuinepreestimatebythepartiesasthemeasureofreasonablecompensation.
Section74oftheActdoesnotapplytonegotiableinstruments.Italsodoesnotapplyincasesofpersonsentering
intobailbondsandothersimilarinstrumentsfortheperformanceofpublicduties.Breachofanyconditioninsuchan
instrumentwouldrequirethepersonconcernedtopaytheentiresummentionedtherein.However,theexplanationto
theexceptionprovidesthatapartywhocontractswiththeGovernmentdoesnotnecessarilyundertakeanypublic
duties.
Itisimportanttonotethatbyprovidingforcompensationinexpresstermstherighttoclaimdamagesunderthe
generallawisnecessarilyexcluded.

PENALTYANDLIQUIDATEDDAMAGES
http://www.printfriendly.com/print/?source=site&url=http://www.lawteacher.net/freelawessays/contractlaw/damagesunderindiancontractactlawessays.p

3/6

10/27/2015

PrintFriendly.com:Printwebpages,createPDFs

Oftenthetermliquidateddamages'ismistakenorratherconfusedwiththetermpenalty'.Thus,understandingthe
terms,wecanclearlydistinguishbetweenthetwo.Apenaltycanbesaidtobeasumsostipulatedinterrorem(with
theobjectofcoercingthepartyintoperformingthecontract),andthusanamountqualifiestobeapenaltyifthesum
namedisextravagantandunconscionable.Itisalsoapenaltyifthebreachconsistsinpayingofmoneyandthesum
stipulatedisgreaterthanthesumwhichoughttohavebeenpaid.However,liquidateddamagesareagenuine,
covenantedpreestimateofdamagesasseenabove.Theyarebothtobesojudgedonthefactsofeachcase.The
questionwhetheraparticularstipulationinacontractisinthenatureofthepenaltyhastobedeterminedbythecourt
againstthebackgroundofvariousrelevantfactors,suchasthecharacteroftransactionanditsspecialnature,ifany,
therelativesituationoftheparties,therightsandobligationsaccruingfromsuchatransactionunderthelawandthe
intentionofthepartiesincorporatinginthecontract,theparticularstipulationwhichiscontendedtobepenalin
nature.Ifonsuchacomprehensiveconsideration,thecourtfindsthattherealpurposeforwhichthestipulationwas
incorporatedinthecontractwasthatbyreasonofitsburdensomeoroppressivecharacter,itmayoperateinterrorem
overthepromisorsoastodrivehimtofulfillthecontract,andthentheprovisionwillbeheldtobeofPenalty.

POSITIONUNDERENGLISHLAW
UnderEnglishCommonLaw,partiesmaynameasumtobepayableincaseofbreach,whichifclassifiedbythe
courtasapenaltyisirrecoverablebutifclassifiedasliquidateddamagesisrecoverable.However,theLawof
ContractsinIndiadoesnotrecogniseanyqualitativedifferenceinthenatureofdamages,assection74eliminates
thesomewhatelaboraterefinementunderCommonLaw.Incaseofapenalclause,damageswillbeassessedinthe
usualway,andtheplaintiffmayevenrecoverasumgreaterthanthestipulatedamount.Indiscerningthetruenature
ofthecontractandthecompensationpayable,thecourtmusthaveregardtothetermsandinherentcircumstances
atthetimeofthemakingofthecontractandnotatthetimethebreachoccurred.Thetermsusedbythepartiesare
notconclusiveandthecourtisnotboundbytheirphraseology.Ifthetermisstatedtobeapenaltybutturnsouttobe
agenuinepreestimateofloss,itwillbetreatedasliquidateddamages.
Sometimesthereisaverythinlinedividingprovisionsrelatingtoliquidateddamagesandpenalty.Adistinctionasto
whetherthestipulationisonebywayofliquidateddamagesorpenaltyhasbeensummedupbytheHouseofLords
inDunlopPneumaticTyreCo.Ltd.VsNewGarageandMotorCompanyLtdasfollows:
Thepartieswhousetheexpression`penalty'orliquidated`damages'mayprimafaciemeanwhattheysay,yet
theexpressionsarenotconclusive.
Theessenceofapenaltyisapaymentofmoneyinterroremofanoffendingpartytheessenceofliquidated
damagesisagenuinepreestimateofdamages.
Thequestionwhetherasumisapenaltyorliquidateddamagesisamatterofconstructionoftheparticular
contract,tobejudgedatthetimeofitsformationandnotatthetimeofitsbreach.
Toassistinthistaskofconstruction,varioustestshavebeensuggested,whichifapplicabletothecaseunder
constructionmayprovehelpfulorevenconclusive.Someofthesuchtestsare:
1. Thesumstipulatedshallbeapenaltyifitisextravagantandunconscionableinamountincomparisonwith
greatestlossthatcouldconceivablybeprovedtofollowfrombreach.
2. Itwouldbeapenaltyifbreachconsistsonlyinnotpayingsumofmoneyandsumstipulatedisgreaterthan
sumwhichoughttohavebeenpaid
3. Presumption(butnomore)thatitisapenaltywhensinglesummadepayablebywayofcompensation,or
occurrenceofoneormoreorallofsuchevents,whichmayoccasionseriousdamageortriflingdamage,on
theotherhandand
4. Noobstacletosumstipulatedbeingagenuinepreestimateofdamagethatconsequencesofbreacharesuch
astomakeprecisepreestimationalmostimpossible.Onthecontrary,thatisthesituationwhenprobablythe
preestimateddamagewastruebargainbetweenparties.
http://www.printfriendly.com/print/?source=site&url=http://www.lawteacher.net/freelawessays/contractlaw/damagesunderindiancontractactlawessays.p

4/6

10/27/2015

PrintFriendly.com:Printwebpages,createPDFs

POSITIONUNDERINDIANLAW
Section74oftheIndianContractActreadsasfollows:Whenacontracthasbeenbroken,ifasumisnamedinthe
contractastheamounttobepaidincaseofsuchbreach,orifthecontractcontainsanyotherstipulationbywayof
penalty,thepartycomplainingofthebreachisentitled,whetherornotactualdamageorlossisprovedtohavebeen
causedthereby,toreceivefromthepartywhohasbrokenthecontractreasonablecompensationnotexceedingthe
amountsonamedor,asthecasemaybe,thepenaltystipulatedfor.InFatehChandvBalkishanDas,theSupreme
Courtstated:
Section74declaresthelawastoliabilityuponbreachofcontractwherecompensationisbyagreementofparties
predeterminedorwherethereisastipulationbywayofpenalty.Buttheapplicationoftheenactmentisnotrestricted
tocaseswheretheaggrievedpartyclaimsreliefasaplaintiff.Thesectiondoesnotconferaspecialbenefituponany
party.Itmerelydeclaresthelawthatnotwithstandinganyterminthecontractfordeterminingthedamagesor
providingforforfeitureofanypropertybywayofpenalty,theCourtwillawardtothepartyaggrievedonlyreasonable
compensationnotexceedingtheamountnamedorpenaltystipulated.TheCourtalsoheldthatthejurisdictionofthe
courttoawardcompensationundersection73incaseofbreachofcontractisunqualifiedexceptastothemaximum
stipulated,andcompensationhastobereasonable.Thissectionhastobereadinconjunctionwithsection74,
section74emphasizesthatincaseofbreachofcontract,thepartycomplainingofthebreachisentitledtoreceive
reasonablecompensationwhetherornottheactuallossisproved.
InSteelAuthorityofIndiaVGuptaBrothersSteelTubesLtdSupremeCourtheldthatthereisnoimpedimentorany
obstacleforthepartiestoacontracttomakeprovisionsofliquidateddamagesforspecificbreachesonly,leaving
othertypesofbreachestobedealtwithasunliquidateddamages.Thereisnoprinciplewhichrequiresthatoncethe
provisionofliquidateddamageshasbeenmadeinthecontract,intheeventofbreachofoneoftheparties,such
clausehastobereadcoveringalltypesofbreachesalthoughpartiesmaynothaveintendedandprovidedfor
compensationinexpresstermsofalltypesofbreaches.
Thepurposeofsuchclausesistopromotecertainty,especiallyincommercialcontracts.Partiestoacontractwould
fixsuchasuminadvanceatthetimeofmakingthecontractbecauseitfacilitatescalculationofrisksitreducesthe
difficultyandexpenseofprovingactualdamageorlossandfacilitatesrecoveryofdamages.Italsoavoidsthe
difficultyinassessment,evenwheretheconsequencesofbreachareascertainableandavoidstheriskofunder
compensationthepartymayotherwisenotbeabletorecoverindirect,consequentiallossbytheruleofremoteness.
Itgivespromiseeanassurancethathemaysafelyrelyonthefulfilmentofthepromise.TheSupremeCourtalso
framedthefollowingguidelinesintheONGCvSawPipescaseforarrivingatthereasonablecompensation'vide
section74oftheContractAct:Beforedecidingthataclaimantisentitledtoanycompensationthetermsofthe
contractmustbeconsideredwheresuchtermsareunambiguousthesumnamedthereinmustbeawardedunless
suchsumisfoundtobebywayofapenaltyorinanycaseunreasonable.Inallcasesofbreach,section74istobe
readwithsection73andthereforeitisnotessentialforapartytoproveactuallossesbeforeclaimingadecreea
courtiscompetenttoawardreasonablecompensation'incaseofbreachirrespectiveoftheexistenceofanysuch
proof.Sometimesitisimpossibleforthecourttodeterminethedamageswithcertaintyinwhichcasethecourtcan
safelyawardthestipulatedsumifitisthegenuinepreestimateofdamagesbythepartiesasthemeasureof
reasonablecompensation.
Itsufficesheretonotethat,subjecttooneimportantqualification,itisunnecessarytodistinguishbetweenapenalty
andliquidateddamagesinIndia.Thequalificationisthats.74allowsacourttoawardsuchreasonable
compensationwhetherornotactualdamageorlossisprovedtohavebeencaused,andtheSupremeCourthas
heldthatthesumnamedinthecontractwillbetakentorepresentreasonablecompensationinanycasewhereitis
unabletoassessactualloss(MaulaBaxvUnionofIndia)Inshort,inasignificantnumberofcases,theclaimantis
entitledtothebenefitofaliquidateddamagesclausewithoutfurtherado.However,theCourthasalsoheldthatthis
benefitisunavailableifthesumisthoughttorepresentapenaltynot,asinEnglishlaw,becausethatmakesit
unenforceable,butbecausethereisthennoreasontoconsiderthatthesumreflectsreasonablecompensation.
http://www.printfriendly.com/print/?source=site&url=http://www.lawteacher.net/freelawessays/contractlaw/damagesunderindiancontractactlawessays.p

5/6

10/27/2015

PrintFriendly.com:Printwebpages,createPDFs

ThesignificanceofthisdistinctionhasbeenconsideredbytheDelhiHighCourtinitsrecentjudgmentinSudhir
GensetsvIndianOilCorporation.Theappellant,SudhirGensets[SGL]hadagreedtosupplycertainequipmentto
IOCbyaspecifieddeadline,andClause13ofthecontractprovidedthatitwouldpayliquidateddamagesof0.5%of
thevalueofthegoodsdelayedperweek,subjecttoamaximumof10%ofthetotalvalue.SGL,foravarietyof
reasons,couldnotsupplyintime,andafindingoffactwasmadethatthefaultwasnotthatofIOC.Accordingly,
IOCdeducted(thesignificanceofthisisconsideredattheend)asumofaboutRs.10lakh,andSGLchallengeditin
arbitrationproceedingsonthegroundthatIOChadnotadducedproofofloss.BeforetheHighCourt,obvious
reliancewasplacedbyIOConthelanguageofs.74,andthepropositionadvancedwasthatitisunnecessaryto
offerproofofloss.TheHighCourt,afteradetailedreferencetothedecisionoftheSupremeCourtinONGCvSaw
Pipes,acceptedthiscontention,holdingthatthefigureinquestionrepresentedthevaluethepartiesplacedonthe
lossIOCwouldsufferonaccountofanydelayindelivery.TheCourtrightlyclarifiedthatthisresultwouldnotfollowif
thesumnamedinthecontractisfoundtobeapenalty,becausethereisthennoroomtoassumethatitrepresentsa
reasonableestimateoflossesorreasonablecompensationforthepurposeofawardingdamagesunders.74.

COMMONFEATURESBETWEENENGLISHLAWANDINDIANLAW
AfterseeingthevariousprovisionsbothunderIndianlawandEnglishlawwecanconcludethecommonanalogy
betweenthem.Yetthedistinctionbetweenliquidateddamagesandpenaltyisnotalltogetherirrelevanttothe
section.Itsrelevance,inthefirstplace,arisesfromthefactthattheamountcontemplatedbythepartieswillbe
reducedonlyifitappearstobebywayofpenalty.Otherwisethewholeofitisrecoverableasliquidateddamages.
Secondly,thefirstexplanationtothissectionusesthewordpenalty.Itprovidesthatastipulationforincreased
interestfromthedateofdefaultmaybeastipulationbywayofpenalty.Stillanothercommonfeaturebetweenthe
EnglishcommonlawandIndianlawisshownbythedecisionoftheSupremeCourtinChunilalV.Mehta&SonsLtd.
v.CenturySpg.&MfgCo.Ltd,whereithasbeenheldbytheCourtthatbyprovidingforcompensationinexpress
termstherighttoclaimdamagesunderthegenerallawisnecessarilyexcluded.

http://www.printfriendly.com/print/?source=site&url=http://www.lawteacher.net/freelawessays/contractlaw/damagesunderindiancontractactlawessays.p

6/6