Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Ferrodous Estates (Pvt. ) Ltd. VS P. Gopirathnam (Dead)...
Ferrodous Estates (Pvt. ) Ltd. VS P. Gopirathnam (Dead) - 2020 6 Supreme 555 : Escalation of land prices after the signing of a contract is not a valid reason for non-performance of the contract. The courts have consistently held that mere escalation of land prices after the date of filing of suit cannot be the sole ground to deny specific performance. The grant of specific performance lies in the discretion of the court, but the plaintiff is not to be denied relief solely due to a phenomenal increase in property value during litigation. The totality of circumstances, including who is the defaulting party, must be considered. If the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform and the defendant is in breach, the court may allow the plaintiff to reap the benefits of the price escalation without requiring additional payment, especially when the defendant has taken dishonest pleas or failed to fulfill their obligations under the agreement.Checking relevance for TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD VS THANATH INTERNATIONAL...
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD VS THANATH INTERNATIONAL - 2003 0 Supreme(SC) 278 : Escalation of price after the signing of a contract is not a valid reason for non-performance. The court held that unforeseen events, such as price increases due to external factors like the Gulf War or transport difficulties, do not absolve a party from performing the contract unless the contract is frustrated. The Contract Act, 1872 does not permit a party to claim payment at rates different from the stipulated rates on vague equity pleas, and mere onerousness of performance does not justify non-performance or price enhancement.Checking relevance for Energy Watchdog VS Central Electricity Regulatory Commission...
Energy Watchdog VS Central Electricity Regulatory Commission - 2017 3 Supreme 780 : An unexpected rise in the price of coal does not absolve generating companies from performing their contractual obligations under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The court held that the risk of such price escalation was known and accepted by the generating companies at the time of bidding, particularly since the tariff was non-escalable. The doctrine of frustration under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, does not apply because the fundamental basis of the PPA remains unaltered. Furthermore, changes in the cost of fuel, including coal, are explicitly excluded from force majeure events under Clause 12.4 of the PPA. Therefore, escalation of price after the signing of the contract is not a valid reason for non-performance.Checking relevance for Nirmala Anand VS Advent Corporation Private LTD. ...
Nirmala Anand VS Advent Corporation Private LTD. - 2004 4 Supreme 255 : Escalation of price after the signing of a contract is not, by itself, a valid reason for non-performance. The court held that the defendant cannot take advantage of their own wrong by pleading that specific performance would be an unfair advantage to the plaintiff. The appellant was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract throughout, and the delay and escalation were not due to her fault. The court emphasized that the plaintiff is not to be denied specific performance merely because of a phenomenal increase in property value during litigation, especially when the default was committed by the defendant. The court also noted that requiring the plaintiff to pay an additional sum (like Rs. 40 lakhs) due to escalation would amount to frustrating the agreement and putting a premium on the defendant''''s breach.Checking relevance for OPG Power Generation Private Limited VS Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Private Limited...
Checking relevance for Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs Vasavi Power Services Pvt. Ltd....
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs Vasavi Power Services Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi (2022) : Escalation of price after the signing of a contract is not a valid reason for non-performance when the delay in execution is attributable to the employer. In this case, the court held that the contractor (VPSPL) was entitled to claim price escalation for the extended period because the prolongation of the contract was due to the respondent''''s (BHEL''''s) breach of contract in not providing inputs, materials, and drawings in time. The Arbitrator awarded escalation compensation based on the principle that escalation is a normal incident arising from a gap in time in performance, especially in an inflationary environment. The court upheld this award, emphasizing that the PVC (Price Variation Compensation) and ORC (Overrun Compensation) clauses, which restrict escalation claims, apply only during the original contract period and not for the extended period caused by the employer''''s delay. Therefore, the contractor''''s non-performance (in withdrawing work) due to price escalation was not justified when the delay was attributed to the employer, and the contractor was entitled to compensation for price escalation as damages.
