MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. versus M/S. DATAR SWITCHGEAR LIMITED & ORS.

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. versus M/S. DATAR SWITCHGEAR LIMITED & ORS.

The termination of contract by respondent No.2 was valid and justified due to a fundamental breach by the appellant in failing to supply necessary lists of locations for installation with no fault of respondent; respondent was ready and willing to perform, but prevented from doing so; the innocent party is entitled to damages for both the performed and unperformed portions of the contract; and mitigation is not required in these circumstances due to the custom nature of contract objects.

Parties
Appellant: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.; Respondent No.2: M/s. Datar Switchgear Limited; Respondents: Other Respondents
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal From Division Bench Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Termination of Contract, Arbitral Award, Damages, Fundamental Breach, Waiver
Arbitration Contract Law Termination of Contract Arbitral Award Damages Fundamental Breach Waiver

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.

Appellant

M/s. Datar Switchgear Limited

Respondent No.2

Other Respondents

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal From Division Bench Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether termination of contract by respondent was valid and justified
  2. 2 Entitlement to damages from contract termination
  3. 3 Mitigation of damages

Ratio Decidendi

The termination of contract by respondent No.2 was valid and justified due to a fundamental breach by the appellant in failing to supply necessary lists of locations for installation with no fault of respondent; respondent was ready and willing to perform, but prevented from doing so; the innocent party is entitled to damages for both the performed and unperformed portions of the contract; and mitigation is not required in these circumstances due to the custom nature of contract objects.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs imposed