S.74 Contract Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Permissible If It’s Not Excessive Amounting To Penalty : SC

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. S.74 Contract Act...

In Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 3334/2023), the Supreme Court ruled that forfeiture of earnest money in property transactions is valid if reasonable and does not fall under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, unless it forms part of the consideration. The court emphasized that unfair and one-sided contract terms could be considered an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that Article 14 of the Constitution ensures fairness in contracts, particularly in cases of unequal bargaining power. In this case, the buyer canceled the contract due to a market recession, and the developer forfeited 20% of the amount as earnest money. The NCDRC reduced the forfeiture to 10% and ordered a refund with 6% interest per annum. The Supreme Court upheld the reduced forfeiture but removed the interest component, reinforcing the principle that forfeiture clauses must be reasonable and not excessive.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Somprabha Rana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl.A. No. 3821/2023 (2024 INSC 664)

The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with an SLP arising out of disposal of Writ of Habeas Corpus has categorically held that the father of a child cannot be granted custody merely because he is a natural guardian but the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration and that its judicial Read more »

Reconciling Conflicting Supreme Court Judgments: High Courts Must Harmonize Rather Than Choose

Judicial precedents play a crucial role in shaping legal principles and ensuring consistency in the application of the law. However, there are instances where two Supreme Court judgments appear to contradict each other, creating a complex situation for High Courts. How should High Courts proceed in such cases? Can they Read more »

Kirpal Singh Vs. Government of India, New Delhi & Ors

In Kirpal Singh v. Government of India, New Delhi & Ors, the Supreme Court condoned a 126-day delay in filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, holding that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which excludes time spent before courts without jurisdiction, applies to Section Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.