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

Supreme Court Upholds Fundamental Right to Be Informed of Arrest Grounds

In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), the Supreme Court held informing grounds of arrest to relative of accused is not sufficient and that Article 22(1) mandates that every arrested person must be informed about the grounds of arrest in a way they understand. The court declared the Appellant’s arrest was illegal due to... Read more » Read more »

Ambience Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Ambience Island Apartment Owners, (2021) 2 SCC 163

The Supreme Court held that the execution proceedings and original proceedings are separate and independent. An appeal under S. 23 of the Consumer Protection Act will not lie to Supreme Court against an order which has been passed in the course of execution proceedings. An appeal under S. 23 is maintainable against an order which... Read more » Read more »

Vidyasagar Prasad Vs. UCO Bank & Anr. 2024 INSC 810

In the case of Vidyasagar Prasad vs. UCO Bank & Anr. 2024 INSC 810, the Supreme Court upheld the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a Corporate Debtor that defaulted on loan repayments to UCO Bank. The NCLT had approved the CIRP application, prompting the Corporate Debtor to appeal to the NCLAT.... Read more » 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.