Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Impossibility and Unlawfulness of Performance - A contract to do an act which, after its formation, becomes impossible or unlawful is considered void. This applies especially when the event causing impossibility or unlawfulness is beyond the promisor's control, such as failure to obtain necessary government permissions or permits. Under s 57 of the Contracts Act 1950, such agreements are void once the act becomes impossible or unlawful ["TRUSTEES OF BOON SAN TONG & ANOR vs HUN MENG DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD - High Court"] [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRA_2009_2_MLRA_471) ["PACIFIC FOREST INDUSTRIES SDN BHD & ANOR vs LIN WEN-CHIH & ANOR - Federal Court"] ["PACIFIC FOREST INDUSTRIES SDN BHD vs LIN WEN-CHIH"].
Frustration Due to Government Permissions - When a contractual obligation, such as a sale coupled with a construction obligation, becomes impossible to perform because of the failure to secure required government approvals, the contract is deemed frustrated. This is supported by the principle that legal or regulatory restrictions can constitute an event of frustration, rendering the contract void ["TRUSTEES OF BOON SAN TONG & ANOR vs HUN MENG DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD - High Court"] [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRA_2009_2_MLRA_471) ["SUPER SUPPORT SDN BHD vs PENG MUN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (PERAK) SDN BHD & ORS - High Court"].
Effect of Frustration - Once performance becomes impossible or unlawful due to supervening events like denial of permits, the contract is automatically void, and parties are generally discharged from further obligations. This is consistent with the statutory provisions that contracts become void when an act becomes impossible or unlawful ["TRUSTEES OF BOON SAN TONG & ANOR vs HUN MENG DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD - High Court"] [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRA_2009_2_MLRA_471).
Legal References - Section 57 of the Contracts Act 1950 explicitly states that an agreement to do an act impossible in itself, is void, and similarly, contracts that become impossible or unlawful after formation are void ["TRUSTEES OF BOON SAN TONG & ANOR vs HUN MENG DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD - High Court"] [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRA_2009_2_MLRA_471) ["PACIFIC FOREST INDUSTRIES SDN BHD & ANOR vs LIN WEN-CHIH & ANOR - Federal Court"].
Conclusion - An agreement to sell coupled with a construction obligation that becomes impossible to perform due to failure in obtaining necessary government permissions becomes void by frustration. This aligns with the legal doctrine that contracts frustrated by supervening impossibility or illegality are automatically rendered void, relieving parties from further obligations ["TRUSTEES OF BOON SAN TONG & ANOR vs HUN MENG DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD - High Court"] [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRA_2009_2_MLRA_471).
In the complex world of contracts, what happens when an agreement to sell, coupled with a construction obligation, becomes impossible due to failure in obtaining necessary government permissions? Does it become void due to frustration? This is a critical question for buyers, sellers, developers, and businesses in India. Under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, contracts can indeed be discharged if performance is rendered impossible by unforeseen events beyond the parties' control. However, courts apply this doctrine pragmatically, not as an easy escape clause.
This blog post delves into the doctrine of frustration, analyzes landmark cases, and integrates insights from various judicial precedents. Note: This is general information based on legal principles and case law. It is not specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The foundation lies in Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which states: A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. Central Bank of India Staff Co-operative Building Society Ltd. , Vijayawada VS Dulipalla Ramachandra Koteswara Rao - 2003 Supreme(AP) 721
Key elements for frustration include:- The event must be unforeseen.- It must render performance impossible, not merely difficult or expensive.- The impossibility must be beyond the parties' control.
Government permissions—such as land use approvals, building permits, or clearances under acts like the Urban Land Ceiling Act—are often prerequisites for performance, especially in real estate deals involving sales and construction. When these fail, contracts may be voided, but parties must prove actual impossibility. Mere delays or increased costs typically do not suffice. LEE SENG HOCK vs FATIMAH ZAIN
Indian courts have interpreted Section 56 in diverse scenarios involving government actions. Let's examine pivotal cases.
In a key precedent, a company entered an agreement to sell land coupled with a construction obligation. Performance became impossible when the government requisitioned the land for an indefinite period. The court held the contract frustrated under Section 56, as the requisition was unforeseen and made performance impossible as contemplated. Mugneeram Bangore and Co. VS Satyabrata Ghosh - 1950 0 Supreme(Cal) 177
Implication: Indefinite government requisitions can discharge obligations, emphasizing that the core subject matter's unavailability voids the deal.
Contrastingly, in a rice delivery contract, government restrictions on transport (wagons) were cited as impossibility. The court ruled against frustration because the defendant could have applied for permission. The contract was impliedly conditional on such efforts. Performance was not practically insurmountable. Sannidhi Gundayya VS Illoori Subbayya - 1926 0 Supreme(Mad) 300
Legal Principle: Parties must take reasonable steps like applying for permits; failure undermines frustration claims. D. R. Mehta VS Tin Plate Dealers Association - 1964 0 Supreme(Mad) 172
A toll collection agreement faced government ordinances halting traffic. However, since some traffic continued, performance was not wholly impossible. The contract persisted. The President Of District Board Of VS G. Santhappa Naick - 1924 0 Supreme(Mad) 535
Takeaway: Partial restrictions do not trigger frustration if some performance remains feasible.
In another case, an agreement for sale was challenged under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The court noted: non-pursuance of matter for 19 years, non-delivery of possession under agreement and non-granting of permission by Urban Land Ceiling Authority clearly indicates abandonment. The doctrine applied as performance became absolutely impossible without fault. Central Bank of India Staff Co-operative Building Society Ltd. , Vijayawada VS Dulipalla Ramachandra Koteswara Rao - 2003 Supreme(AP) 721
This highlights how prolonged silence or failure to obtain permissions can imply abandonment, reinforcing frustration.
Where a government ban existed but permits were obtainable, courts rejected impossibility pleas. The mere existence of a government ban does not automatically make performance impossible if the party could have sought permission or alternative means. D. R. Mehta VS Tin Plate Dealers Association - 1964 0 Supreme(Mad) 172
Courts consistently stress practicality. In disputes over possession and part performance under the Transfer of Property Act, Section 53A, frustration was invoked when permissions like NOCs were unavailable, rendering title perfection impossible. However, defendants claiming protection must prove willingness and readiness. Jayshri W/o Rameshchandra Bhore VS Arvind S/o Narayanrao Tarekar - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 408Jayshri w/o Rameshchandra Bhore VS Arvind s/o Narayanrao Tarekar - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 97
In arbitration matters, pleas of frustration due to power of attorney cancellations or tax hikes were dismissed unless truly supervening and impossible. For instance: The cancellation of the power of attorney did not constitute a force majeure event, and the appellant could not shirk its responsibility under the doctrine of frustration of contract. TODAY HOMES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD VS JITENDER SINGH - 2015 Supreme(Del) 2218
Section 56 also covers unlawfulness post-contract: Obligation of person who has received advantage under void agreement, or contract that becomes void. S DAYA SINGH & SONS(HUF) AND OTHERS Vs M/S SOM DATT BUILDERS PVT LTD. - 2019 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 2489S Daya Singh & Sons (HUF) vs Som Datt Builders Pvt. Ltd.
To determine if an agreement to sell with construction becomes void:1. Is permission a condition precedent? If yes, indefinite denial may frustrate. Mugneeram Bangore and Co. VS Satyabrata Ghosh - 1950 0 Supreme(Cal) 1772. Did parties mitigate? Applying for permissions is expected. Sannidhi Gundayya VS Illoori Subbayya - 1926 0 Supreme(Mad) 3003. Absolute vs. Relative Impossibility? Only absolute counts; partial feasibility preserves the contract. The President Of District Board Of VS G. Santhappa Naick - 1924 0 Supreme(Mad) 5354. Fault or Foreseeability? No fault on either side, and event unforeseen. Central Bank of India Staff Co-operative Building Society Ltd. , Vijayawada VS Dulipalla Ramachandra Koteswara Rao - 2003 Supreme(AP) 721
In cases like agricultural land sales under the Bombay Tenancy Act, refusals by authorities led to damages rather than specific performance, showing courts' equitable approach. GUNVANTLAL RATANCHAND SINCE DECEASED THRO HEIRS VS RAMESHBHAI PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL - 2015 Supreme(Guj) 405
Government permission failures can frustrate agreements to sell with construction obligations, rendering them void under Section 56, but only if impossibility is absolute, unforeseen, and unavoidable despite reasonable efforts. Cases like indefinite requisitions support voiding Mugneeram Bangore and Co. VS Satyabrata Ghosh - 1950 0 Supreme(Cal) 177, while unapplied-for permits do not Sannidhi Gundayya VS Illoori Subbayya - 1926 0 Supreme(Mad) 300.
Key Takeaways:- Always pursue permissions proactively.- Draft contracts with clear impossibility clauses.- Seek legal counsel early to assess frustration viability.
Stay informed on evolving case law, as courts balance equity and contract sanctity. For tailored advice, contact a legal professional.
References:- Section 56, Indian Contract Act, 1872.- Cases: Mugneeram Bangore and Co. VS Satyabrata Ghosh - 1950 0 Supreme(Cal) 177, Sannidhi Gundayya VS Illoori Subbayya - 1926 0 Supreme(Mad) 300, The President Of District Board Of VS G. Santhappa Naick - 1924 0 Supreme(Mad) 535, D. R. Mehta VS Tin Plate Dealers Association - 1964 0 Supreme(Mad) 172, Central Bank of India Staff Co-operative Building Society Ltd. , Vijayawada VS Dulipalla Ramachandra Koteswara Rao - 2003 Supreme(AP) 721, Jayshri W/o Rameshchandra Bhore VS Arvind S/o Narayanrao Tarekar - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 408, TODAY HOMES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD VS JITENDER SINGH - 2015 Supreme(Del) 2218, GUNVANTLAL RATANCHAND SINCE DECEASED THRO HEIRS VS RAMESHBHAI PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL - 2015 Supreme(Guj) 405.
#ContractFrustration #IndianContractAct #LegalInsights
Contract to do acts afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful (2) A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful." ... Any restriction or inability to develop half of the property due to legal constraints would constitute an event of frustration. Refer to s 57 of the Con....
It was not due to a lack of trying or the fault of any one party but just that the contractual obligation has become impossible to perform due to the absence of a mechanism in the agreement to settle this dead lock. ... void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. ... If it cannot be performed or becomes unlawful to perform, then the party who is to perform his part of the b....
It was not due to a lack of trying or the fault of any one party but just that the contractual obligation has become impossible to perform due to the absence of a mechanism in the agreement to settle this dead lock. ... [25] According to s 57 of the Contracts Act 1950, an agreement to do an act of impossibility is void and a contract to do an act which, after it is made, becomes impossible or unlawful and it was n....
It was not due to a lack of trying or the fault of any one party but just that the contractual obligation has become impossible to perform due to the absence of a mechanism in the agreement to settle this dead lock. ... [25] According to s. 57 of the Contracts Act 1950, an agreement to do an act of impossibility is void and a contract to do an act which, after it is made, becomes impossible or unlawful and it wa....
It was not due to a lack of trying or the fault of any one party but just that the contractual obligation has become impossible to perform due to the absence of a mechanism in the agreement to settle this dead lock. ... A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes#....
Contract to do act afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible. Or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. ... ... ( 37 ) SECTION 56 of the Indian Contract act, 1872 deals with the Doctrine of Frustration and it reads as follows : section 56. Agreement to do #HL_STAR....
(b) If the event becomes impossible such contracts become void. does not define the word "impossible". However it appears that the wording of the section envisages two main instances of frustration - when a contact to do an act becomes (a) impossible or (b) unlawful. ... This sealed the fate of the agreement as the respondent contends that it has been frustrated on the grounds that it was impossible to perform, a ....
becomes impossible or unlawful. ... (b) If the event becomes impossible such contracts become void. reads as follows: 1 (2) A contract to do any act, which after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when
Obligation of person who has received advantage under void agreement, or contract that becomes void. ... —A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. ... (d) makes it clear that if a contract is void or ....
Obligation of person who has received advantage under void agreement, or contract that becomes void. ... A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. ... The contract in this case was rendered void due#H....
Second category comes into play wherein contract becomes impossible to perform or unlawful to perform - such contract becomes void. The first category is an agreement to do an impossible act.
The first category is an agreement to do an impossible act. Second category comes into play wherein contract becomes impossible to perform or unlawful to perform – such contract becomes void.
An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void--A contract to do an act which after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. The answer to the first question depends on the construction of the expression 'impossible of performance' occurring in section 56 of the Indian Contract Act which lays down: ‘56. Where one person has promised to do something which he knew, or, with reasonable diligence, might have known, and which the promisee....
According to the appellant, it stood discharged of its obligation to perform the agreement with the claimant, due to frustration of contract. In support, learned counsel relied on clause 10 of the agreement between the claimant and the appellant as well as Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act. The event of cancellation was a supervening event, which rendered the performance of obligations by Today Homes, envisioned under the agreement to sell, impossible. Counsel relied on the decision in Satyabrata Ghose Vs. Mugneeram Bangur and Co. and Anr., (1954) SCR 310.
The answer to the first question depends on the construction of the expression 'impossible of performance' occurring in section 56 of the Indian Contract Act which lays down: "56. The meaning of the aforesaid expression 'impossible of performance' as used in the above quoted section would be clear from the, following observation made by Lord Loreburn in Tampfin Steamship 518 Co. Ltd. v. Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Products Co. Ltd(1) 403 which is generally considered to contain a classic and terse exposition of the law relating to frustration: "The parties shall be excused if substantially the w....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
