Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29667
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, Murali Purushothaman, JJ
C. PRADEEP, C.RAJAN, RATHEESH BABU, K.S.JOBY, L.P.JAYACHANDRAN – Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SEC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2271 OF 2021 | WP(C) NO. 4111 OF 2021 | WP(C) NO. 4462 OF 2021 | WP(C) NO. 4831 OF 2021 | WP(C) NO. 5233 OF 2021 | WP(C) NO. 7474 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.R.SUNIL, V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, P.K.SASIKUMAR, SMT.SMITHA, SRI.DHEERAJ KRISHNAN PEROT, SMT.CHITRA JOHNSON, B.ASHOK SHENOY, SRI.P.S.GIREESH, SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, K.MOHANAKANNAN, SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA, SRI.H.PRAVEEN, LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM, SRI.JOICE GEORGE, SMT.REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS, SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, SHRI.TOM E. JACOB, C.R.JAYAKUMAR, SRI.SAJU J PANICKER, SRI.NOBEL RAJU
For the Respondents: SRI.G.BIJU, SC, TDB
COVID-19 pandemic restrictions do not frustrate contracts under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act; mere hardship does not equate to impossibility of performance.
Headnote:(A) Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 56 - Writ petitions concerning contracts with the Travancore Devaswom Board for supply of pooja items - Lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic deemed not to frustrate the contracts, and petitioners' claims for refunds or extensions refused as contracts remain enforceable - The doctrine of frustration does not apply as the hardships do not constitute impossibility of performance. (Paras 2-12)
(B) Business contracts - Rights and duties of parties governed by express terms - Unanticipated events do not exempt parties from contractual obligations - Contractual rights for specific periods must be honored despite adverse developments. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners entered into contracts with the Travancore Devaswom Board for the supply of pooja items but could not perform due to COVID-19 restrictions, prompting claims for refund and extension of contract periods, citing frustration under the Indian Contract Act.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the contracts were not frustrated as performance remained possible post-lockdown and petitioners were bound by the contract terms despite financial losses resulting from restrictions.
Issues: The court addressed whether the COVID-19 pandemic constituted grounds for contract frustration and whether petitioners had rights to refunds or contract extensions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere hardship does not equate to legal impossibility as specified in Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, thus affirming contractual liabilities even during adverse conditions.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common judicial consideration of contractual obligations during crises. (Para 1 , 8) |
| 2. contract terms must be executed despite adverse events. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. frustration doctrine not applicable unless performance is impossible. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Ravikumar, J.
Since these writ petitions involve common issues, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
W.P. (C) No. 2271/2021
2. The petitioners in this writ petition have entered into individual contract with the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) for the supply of 'pooja items' for different Devaswoms under the TDB for the financial year 2020-2021. As per Ext. P1 conditions of contract, petitioners 1, 2 and 4 remitted 50% of the auction amount and petitioners 3 and 5 remitted full auction amount. According to the petitioners, when they were about to commence the sale in the stalls from 01.04.2020, lock down was declared by the Government on the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic and due to restrictions in pilgrimage, they could not carry out the business and they could sell the pooja articles only from 22.10.2020. Therefore, the petitioners contend that the contract has become frustrated and hit by Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act and therefore, void. The petitioners submitted Ext. P6 series representations before the TDB requesting to extend the period of contract for eight months, i.e., upto 30.11.2021 and to exonerate them from remitting the balance installments. Since the TDB did not take any action on their representations, they have filed this writ petition to declare the contract as void in terms of Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act and for return of the amounts remitted by them or in the alternative to direct the TDB to extent the period of contract till 30.11.2021.
W.P (C) No. 4111/2021
3. The TDB auctioned off the right for sale of pooja articles in Chiravom Muttam Devaswom under Sajivothamapuram Sub Group under Changanacherry Group for the financial year 2020-2021 to the petitioner who is a senior citizen. According to the petitioner, due to COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictions imposed, practically, no activities could be conducted by the petitioner pursuant to the auctioning of rights. However, the TDB has issued Ext. P1 notice informing the petitioner that if the balance auction amount is not remitted within 10 days from the receipt of notice, the petitioner will be blacklisted. Though the petitioner submitted Ext. P4 representation before the third respondent, the same was not considered. Accordingly, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging Ext. P1 and for direction to forebear the respondents from blacklisting him.
W.P (C) No. 4462/2021
4. The petitioner, Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd., was awarded the rights to collect coconuts from Sannidhanam and Pampa for the period from 11.11.2019 to 31.10.2020 by the TDB. According to the petitioner, due to COVID-19 pandemic and lock down declared consequently, in March 2020, for over eight months; there was hardly any collection of coconuts possible and the petitioner suffered huge loss. The petitioner submitted Exts. P3 and P4 representations before the TDB requesting to appropriately compensate the petitioner for the loss suffered. However, those representations are not considered by the respondents. Therefore, this writ petition is filed for direction to TDB to consider Exts. P3 and P4 representations within a time limit.
W.P (C) No. 4831/2021
5. The petitioners have succeeded in the auction for the right for distribution of pooja articles in various temples under the TDB for the financial year 2020-2021 and have entered into separate contracts with the TDB. As per the terms of contract, they remitted 50% of the bid amounts. However, due to the restrictions imposed consequent to COVID-19 pandemic, there was no sale and the pooja articles could be sold only after the restrictions were later relaxed. Though the petitioners s
