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 Restrains Courts from Ordering Counselling, Issues Landmark Guidelines to Protect Autonomy, particularly with respect to their sexual orientation

In Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala, 2024 INSC 228, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while hearing a criminal appeal against interim orders of the Kerala High Court in a writ of habeas corpus, laid down important guidelines to safeguard the fundamental rights and dignity of intimate partners and LGBTQ+ Read more »

Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Others; 2009 (2) SCC 570

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that It is the Duty of the Disciplinary Authority to record reasons. The orders of disciplinary authority and appellate authority entails civil consequences. Hence, the orders must be based on recorded reasons. Read more »

Asif Iqbal Tanha v. State of NCI, Delhi, Criminal Appeal 39/2021, 15 June 2021

The Terrorist Acts defined under Unlawful Assembly Prevention Act only deal with matters impacting "Defence of India" and not under Ordinary laws & Order Problems. The intent and purport of the Parliament in enacting the UAPA, and more specifically in amending it in 2004 and 2008 to bring terrorist activity 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.