• Today: October 31, 2025

fatehchand-v-balkishan-das-1964-liquidated-damages

31 October, 2025
1751
Fatehchand v. Balkishan Das (1964) — Section 74 & Liquidated Damages | The Law Easy

Fatehchand v. Balkishan Das (1964) — Section 74 & Liquidated Damages

Supreme Court of India 1964 [1964] 1 SCR 515 Contract Law Liquidated Damages By Gulzar Hashmi India Shah J. 26 Oct 2025

Primary: Fatehchand v. Balkishan Das; Section 74; liquidated damages; penalty
Secondary: earnest money; forfeiture; sale contract

Hero image for Fatehchand v. Balkishan Das case explainer

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court clarified Section 74 of the Contract Act. A party gets only reasonable compensation for breach. A named sum or a forfeiture clause is only a limit, not an automatic award. In this case, only a small part could be kept as earnest money. The rest needed proof of loss.

  • Penalty ≠ automatic payment.
  • Reasonable compensation ≤ named sum.
  • Earnest money may be forfeited if reasonable.
```

Issues

  1. Who committed the breach — the seller or the buyer?
  2. Can the seller forfeit the large deposit under the contract?
  3. How does Section 74 control liquidated damages and penalties?

Rules

Section 74 (Contract Act): It applies to cases with a named sum or a penalty clause, and also when a party tries to forfeit money already received.

  • The Court gives only reasonable compensation, never more than the named sum.
  • The section is neutral: it gives no special benefit to either side.
  • Forfeiture by way of penalty is controlled by the same rule.

Facts — Timeline

Optional
Timeline visual for Fatehchand v. Balkishan Das

21 Mar 1949 — Agreement to Sell

Seller (Balkishan Das) agrees to sell a building and land to the buyer for ₹1,12,500. Buyer pays ₹1,000 as earnest money.

30 Mar 1949 — Possession & Payment

Seller to deliver the house; buyer to pay an extra ₹24,000 by cheque.

By 1 Jun 1949 — Registration Deadline

Sale deed to be registered. On buyer’s default, ₹25,000 forfeiture + cancellation. On seller’s default, seller to pay an extra ₹25,000 to buyer.

Deal Falls Through

Sale not completed. Each side blames the other. Buyer defaults; seller claims compensation and keeps money.

Trial Court

Seller failed to put buyer in possession; cannot keep the full ₹25,000.

High Court (Appeal)

Allows seller to keep ₹11,250 and awards occupation charges at ₹265 per month.

Supreme Court

Seller may keep only ₹1,000 (earnest). Mesne profits at ₹140 per month from 1 Jun 1949 till delivery, plus 6% interest.

Arguments — Appellant vs Respondent

Appellant (Buyer)

  • Seller failed to give timely possession.
  • ₹25,000 forfeiture is a penalty, not reasonable compensation.
  • Any loss should be proved and limited.

Respondent (Seller)

  • Contract allows forfeiture on buyer’s default.
  • Large sum acts as deterrent and covers disruption.
  • Occupation charges should be high.

Judgment

Appeal Allowed (in part)
Judgment illustration for Fatehchand v. Balkishan Das

The Supreme Court said the seller could keep only ₹1,000 as earnest money. The rest of the ₹25,000 could not be forfeited without proof of loss. Mesne profits were fixed at ₹140 per month from 1 June 1949 till delivery, with 6% interest.

Key line: Section 74 caps damages at a named sum and demands reasonableness; it also controls forfeiture.

Ratio Decidendi

  • Reasonable compensation only; never exceed the named sum.
  • Section 74 applies to claims and to forfeiture attempts alike.
  • Earnest money may be forfeited if reasonable; penalties need proof of loss when loss is measurable.

Why It Matters

This is the starting point for Section 74 in India. It guides how to draft and enforce liquidated damages clauses. It stops unfair penalties and protects both sides by insisting on reasonableness.

Key Takeaways

  • Named sum = ceiling, not default payout.
  • Forfeiture is controlled by Section 74.
  • Prove loss when it is quantifiable.
  • Earnest money ≠ every deposit.
  • Keep records to support actual loss.
  • Draft clauses with pre-estimation logic.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “R-CAPReasonable Compensation, Against Penalty.

  1. Reasonable: Court fixes a fair amount.
  2. Cap: Never more than the named sum.
  3. Penalty check: Forfeiture cannot bypass proof.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Whether the seller could forfeit ₹25,000 and who breached the contract.

Rule

Section 74: award only reasonable compensation ≤ named sum; penalties and forfeitures are controlled by this rule.

Application

Loss was measurable; full forfeiture was not justified; only earnest money could be retained.

Conclusion

Seller keeps ₹1,000; mesne profits at ₹140 per month from 1 Jun 1949 with 6% interest.

Glossary (Easy English)

Liquidated Damages
Amount named in the contract as a fair guess of loss if breach happens.
Penalty
Amount meant to punish, not to fairly cover loss; limited by law.
Earnest Money
Buyer’s deposit in a sale to show intent; reasonable forfeiture may be allowed.
Mesne Profits
Money for use and occupation of property by someone not lawfully entitled.

Student FAQs

Only ₹1,000 as earnest money. The rest of ₹25,000 could not be forfeited without proof of loss.

No. Section 74 is neutral. It limits both claims and forfeitures to reasonable compensation.

A named sum is only a ceiling. The court still checks if the amount is reasonable and tied to loss.

Mesne profits were fixed at ₹140 per month from 1 June 1949 until delivery, with 6% interest.

No. Earnest money is typical in sale contracts. Security deposits or penalties may need proof of loss.
```

Comment

Nothing for now