#Damages

The Delhi High Court ruled that a landlord claiming damages for lost rent must first mitigate the loss and establish the prevailing market rent at the time of breach, failing which the claim under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act fails. The decision affects landlords seeking compensation for tenant-induced utility theft, emphasizing the evidentiary burden on them.

The Division Bench held that the vendor's obligation to transfer 51% shares and reconstitute the board was a condition precedent, so its non-performance discharged the purchaser's payment duty. The purchaser's SMS communication avoiding the contract was lawful, and the vendor's Rs. 5.51 crore damages claim failed for want of proof. The purchaser's Rs. 1 crore advance was refunded under Section 65 of the Contract Act.

In a recovery suit for malicious prosecution over a disputed caste certificate, the Delhi High Court held that acquittal does not ipso facto prove malice or want of reasonable cause; the plaintiff must independently establish both elements and quantify damages with evidence. The decision reinforces the stringent burden in tort claims against state prosecutors.

Delhi High Court partially set aside the arbitral award, ruling that damages awarded without establishing actual loss and interest counted as damages breach Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The decision restricts arbitral tribunals to grant only loss-based compensation, with interest payable separately, affecting future construction and contract disputes.

The Kerala High Court ruled that the state cannot withhold or claim damages upon contract termination unless it proves actual financial loss, mandating the return of the security deposit with 9% interest. This reinforces the principle that liquidated damages must reflect real harm, not serve as punitive leverage in public procurement - a critical safeguard for contractors.

Delhi High Court sets aside a Rs. 15.9 crore mesne profits award, ruling that arbitral awards under Section 34 must be grounded in evidence and reasoning. The court held that guesswork or lack of evidentiary basis constitutes patent illegality, impacting future arbitration claims for damages.

Calcutta High Court rules that a contract termination lacking explicit reasons may still be upheld if the trial record establishes a valid ground like misrepresentation, provided the affected party had full opportunity to respond. The decision underscores that administrative actions need not always state reasons upfront if the factual matrix justifies the termination.