Topic
Contractual disputes in Indian law involve conflicts over the performance, interpretation, or termination of agreements governed by the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and arbitration laws.
Kerala High Court ruled that disputed factual questions in contractual disputes cannot be adjudicated via writ jurisdiction under Article 226, directing the petitioner to pursue civil suit remedies instead. The decision reaffirms the limited scope of writ jurisdiction in commercial contract enforcement cases.
Jharkhand HC rules that an allottee’s eight-year delay in challenging a public auction disentitles them to a writ of mandamus, even if the auction lacked due process. The Corporation must refund deposits with interest, but third-party rights and possession remain protected under the Doctrine of Laches.
The Madras High Court ruled that administrative cancellation of a contract without a speaking order violates principles of natural justice. Post-hoc justifications in affidavits cannot cure arbitrary decisions, mandating authorities to record reasons at the time of action to ensure fairness in contractual disputes.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that mere apprehension of contract termination or financial hardship does not satisfy the high threshold for restraining encashment of bank guarantees under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. This reinforces that bank guarantees are independent instruments meant to ensure contractual performance, and judicial intervention requires concrete evidence of fraud or irretrievable harm - not speculative claims. Contractors and public authorities alike must now treat guarantees as enforceable security unless exceptional misconduct is proven.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that when a state entity admits a contractual payment obligation, withholding it entitles the claimant to statutory interest at 6% from the date of contract completion, even without an explicit claim for interest. This reinforces that delayed payment in public contracts is not a discretionary matter but a legal wrong triggering automatic interest, strengthening claimants' position in arbitration enforcement.
Bombay High Court holds that deemed conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA cannot be withheld due to incomplete construction; civil remedies remain available for contractual disputes.