SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 231

ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, VINEET SARAN
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Garima Prashad, AOR Mr. Sumit Chandra, Adv., for the Appellant; Ms. Dharitry Phookan, AOR, for the Respondent.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Compensation for breach of contract is governed by terms of the contract; any excess beyond stipulated limits must be refunded. (!) (!) (!) - The contract limits liquidated damages to a maximum of 12%, which is INR 25,83,181 in the cited scenario; amounts above this must be refunded. (!) (!) - The purchaser may recover liquidated damages as specified for delay in delivery and for installation/commissioning, with rates and caps outlined in clauses 16.2(a)-(c). (!) (!) (!) (!) - The petitioner's claim for interest was not allowed at 18% in the absence of contractual stipulation; interest awarded at 9% from amounts due until judgment. (!) - The relief is determined by the Purchase Order terms and the TDSAT judgment upholding the 12% cap on liquidated damages. (!) (!) - The decision concludes that compensation for breach of contract is to be measured within the contract’s terms, and any quantum meruit claim under Section 70 is not applicable where an express contract governs the relationship. (!) (!) (!)

What is the effect of contract terms on compensation for breach of contract in quantum meruit claims?

What is the permissible quantum of liquidated damages under the contract in relation to a breach of delivery/installation obligations?

What are the rights of the purchaser and supplier regarding refund of excess recovery beyond the contractual liquidated damages cap?


JUDGMENT

R.F. Nariman, J.

The present appeal arises out of a dispute under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. The relief sought through a petition before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ["TDSAT"] by the respondent, Tata Communication Ltd. against the appellant, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., is for a recovery of a sum of INR 1,10,57,268/- plus interest thereon. The question that arose between the parties is whether the appellant was justified in adjusting this amount from the dues payable to the respondent by deduction from the bills raised by the respondent. Since the Purchase Order dated 01.10.2008 forms the basis for the claim, it is important to set out clauses 4 and 8 of the said Purchase Order as under:

"4. SCOPE OF ORDER

xxx xxx xxx

iv. Termination of the bandwidth on STM-1 would be done at the MTNL sites/locations in Delhi (Kidwai Bhawan and Nehru Place) and Mumbai (Fountain Head & Prabha Devi) respectively as per the requirement with redundancy in last mile connectivity. For this bandwidth termination purpose, optical/electrical converter, cable and any other hardware/software etc. required, if any, would be arranged by the b























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top