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

The Jurisdictional Tug-of-War: Court vs. Tribunal in Non-Signatory Joinder in Arbitration

The inclusion of non-signatories in arbitration proceedings presents a significant challenge to both courts and arbitral tribunals alike, as it challenges the foundational principles of consent and party autonomy in arbitration. In corporate transactions involving interconnected entities, determining who can be compelled... Read more »

When To File a Second FIR – Supreme Court Reiterates

The Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (2025 INSC 248) provides much-needed clarity on the circumstances under which a second FIR can be maintained. By holding that a second FIR is justified in cases involving counter-complaints, distinct scopes, broader conspiracies, or newly emerged facts, the Court has reinforced the principle... Read more » Read more »

Borrower Availing Loan for Profit-Generating Exercise Not a Consumer Under Consumer Protection Act

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment in The Central Bank of India & Ors. v. M/s AD Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, has categorically held that borrowers who avail loans for commercial or profit-generating purposes do not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986... 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.