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

Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar (2024 INSC 763)

In Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (2024 INSC 763), the Bihar Technical Service Commission (BTSC) disqualified candidates with private university diplomas unapproved by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) in its recruitment for Junior Engineers. This criterion was challenged based on Bharathidasan University v. AICTE Read more »

Time-Barred on the Face of the Plaint: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection under Order VII Rule 11

In N. Asha Devi v. R. Aravind Kumar & Anr ., the Supreme Court held that where a suit is hopelessly barred by limitation on a plain reading of the plaint, the plaint must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court observed that there can be no Read more »

When machines pollute knowledge: legal implications of AI data contamination in the indian context

– Anup Koushik Karavadi Introduction The exponential rise of generative artificial intelligence has redefined how digital information is created and consumed. However, this rapid advancement has also contaminated the global data environment. Large language models and other generative systems increasingly train on data drawn from the internet, much of which 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.