Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Mathew Jo, S/o. Pulikkan Jose vs Lijo Jose...
Mathew Jo, S/o. Pulikkan Jose vs Lijo Jose - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2317 : In a case where a purchaser fails to perform a contract, the seller''''s loss is calculated based on actual damages suffered, not on the forfeiture of earnest money. Forfeiture of earnest money is not permissible if the seller has not suffered any loss, particularly when the seller has actually benefited from the breach—such as when the value of the subject matter (e.g., property) has increased after the breach. The court emphasized that the seller must prove actual loss due to the breach; mere failure of the purchaser to perform does not automatically entitle the seller to retain the earnest money. Where the seller gains from the breach (e.g., due to rising market value), the court will order the refund of the earnest money, even if the purchaser is in default. Therefore, the seller''''s loss is not presumed but must be demonstrated, and in cases of benefit to the seller, the loss is effectively zero or negative, precluding forfeiture.Checking relevance for Rosamma W/o Pulodh vs Raju Arakkal S/o Geroge Arakkal...
Rosamma W/o Pulodh vs Raju Arakkal S/o Geroge Arakkal - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2815 : In a contract for the sale of immovable property with reciprocal promises, the seller''''s failure to perform pre-requisite conditions—such as measuring the property, providing title documents (e.g., original title deed, encumbrance certificate), and confirming boundaries—constitutes a breach of contract. The buyer''''s obligation to pay the balance consideration arises only after the seller fulfills these conditions. Therefore, if the purchaser fails to perform, the seller''''s loss is not calculated based on the unpaid balance, but rather on the fact that the seller has already breached the contract by failing to perform their own obligations. The court held that the buyer was not in default and remained ready and willing to perform, and thus the seller cannot claim loss due to the buyer''''s non-performance. The seller''''s loss, if any, is limited to the damages arising from their own breach, and the buyer''''s non-performance is excused due to the seller''''s default. The court emphasized that the buyer''''s obligation is conditional upon the seller''''s prior performance, and the seller cannot invoke the buyer''''s non-performance as a basis for claiming loss.Checking relevance for S. K. A. R. S. M. Ramanathan Chettiar VS National Textile Corporation Ltd. , New Delhi...
S. K. A. R. S. M. Ramanathan Chettiar VS National Textile Corporation Ltd. , New Delhi - 1985 0 Supreme(Ker) 88 : In a case where the purchaser fails to perform the contract, the seller''''s loss is calculated as the difference between the contract price and the price at which the goods were finally sold, plus any incidental expenses incurred. The seller must take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss, and the measure of damages is governed by the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale.Checking relevance for Nambarukandi Marakkar VS Nallithodi Thavalaparambil Appu...
Checking relevance for Mukkani Fathima, D/o. Mammu VS Kundu Valappil Fathima D/o. Moidu...
Mukkani Fathima, D/o. Mammu VS Kundu Valappil Fathima D/o. Moidu - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 1511 : In a case where the purchaser fails to perform the contract, the seller may be entitled to recover the amount paid by the purchaser, along with interest at a rate determined by the court (here, 12% from the date of agreement until the decree date, then 6% thereafter). Additionally, the seller may be awarded compensation for loss caused by the purchaser''''s default. In this case, the court awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation for loss, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the judgment. The calculation of loss is thus based on actual payments made by the purchaser and any demonstrable financial loss suffered by the seller due to the breach, which can include both return of consideration and reasonable compensation for damages.Checking relevance for Mathukutty S/o. Kunjukutty VS Mukesh Kumar S/o. Muthuswamy Achary...
Mathukutty S/o. Kunjukutty VS Mukesh Kumar S/o. Muthuswamy Achary - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 260 : In a case where the purchaser fails to perform the contract, the seller''''s loss is calculated based on the terms of the agreement and applicable law. If the contract explicitly stipulates forfeiture of earnest money upon the purchaser''''s default, the seller may retain the advance amount as liquidated damages, provided the clause is clear and enforceable. However, if the contract does not specify such forfeiture or if the payment was not intended as earnest money (but merely part of the purchase price), the seller cannot forfeit the amount. In cases where the seller fails to perform, the buyer may be entitled to recover double the earnest money if so stipulated. The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s readiness to perform was established, and the defendant’s failure to execute the sale deed justified the return of the advance. Thus, the seller’s loss is not automatically the full advance amount but depends on whether the forfeiture clause applies and whether the buyer’s default was genuine. Where the buyer is not at fault, the seller cannot claim loss beyond what is permitted by contract or law.
