Section 74: Compensation for breach of contract where penalty stipulated for

Indian Contract Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1872
Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 74

Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 governs liquidated damages and penalties, empowering courts to award reasonable compensation not exceeding the stipulated amount, irrespective of whether actual damage is proved.

  • Core Legal Standard: Section 74 abolishes the common law distinction between liquidated damages and penalties.
  • Penal Consequences & Liability: When a contract has been broken, if a sum is named in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of breach, or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the defaulting party reasonable.

This statutory framework establishes clear operational guidelines, balancing legal compliance with procedural safeguards.

Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Dass (AIR 1963 SC 1405): A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that Section 74 entitles the aggrieved party only to reasonable compensation, which cannot exceed the stipulated amount. Section 74 dispenses with proof of actual loss only where damages are impossible or extremely difficult to assess.
  • Maula Bux v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 554: The Supreme Court held that forfeiture of earnest money is permissible only where the sum represents a reasonable pre-estimate of loss. Forfeiture of security deposits or large sums without proof of actual damage is hit by Section 74.
  • Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority (2015) 4 SCC 136: The Supreme Court authoritatively restated the law under Section 74: compensation can only be awarded for damage or loss actually suffered. Where it is possible to prove actual damage, it must be proved. Forfeiture of earnest money without proof of loss when the property was re-sold at a higher price violates Section 74.
Legal Commentary:

The Kailash Nath doctrine is transformative for government tenders and commercial contracts: a party cannot automatically forfeit bank guarantees, earnest money, or deduct 10% liquidated damages upon delay without establishing that some actual injury or loss was sustained, unless the contract belongs to a specialized class (like public infrastructure projects) where assessing precise monetary loss is impossible.