What relief did the plaintiff receive?

Damages of Rs. 9,11,525.12 with costs and 12% p.a. interest for wrongful dispossession and loss of profits.

Does uncertainty of damages bar recovery?

No. The Court stated that difficulty in precise assessment does not relieve the wrongdoer from paying damages.

What triggered the dispute?

NDMC took forcible possession with a demolition squad and police during pending proceedings, showing a blank MISA warrant to threaten the plaintiff.

Kishen Lal Kalra v. NDMC — AIR 2001 Del 402

Q: Was the 7 Aug 1976 receipt voluntary?

No. The Court found it was obtained by coercion and undue influence. It was not a voluntary surrender.

Undue influence, coercion, and damages for wrongful dispossession during the Emergency—explained in clean, classroom-style English.

Delhi High Court 2001 AIR 2001 Del 402 Contract & Torts (Damages) ~7 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi · India · Published: 26 Oct 2025

Quick Summary

The plaintiff ran an open-air restaurant under an NDMC licence. During the Emergency (1975–77), NDMC allegedly forcibly took possession with a demolition squad and police while eviction proceedings were still pending. A receipt dated 7 Aug 1976 was taken from him. The Court held this receipt was obtained by coercion/undue influence, not a voluntary surrender, and awarded damages with interest.

Issues

Was the 7 Aug 1976 receipt obtained through undue influence, pressure, coercion, or force?
If yes, what damages are payable for wrongful dispossession and lost profits?

Rules

Coercion / Undue Influence

A surrender extracted by threats, force, or domination of will is not voluntary and cannot defeat a lawful claim.

Damages Principle

Uncertain quantification does not excuse a wrongdoer from paying damages; courts use best evidence to assess loss.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline of licence, eviction, forcible possession and damages

June 1975: National Emergency proclaimed (Art. 352).

Licence: Plaintiff runs open-air restaurant under NDMC; lease till 31 May 1978.

21 Jun 1976: NDMC starts eviction proceedings.

7 Aug 1976: NDMC allegedly takes forcible possession with police; shows blank MISA warrant; obtains a receipt.

1976–1978: Case before Estate Officer lingers; NDMC often absent.

Jul 1979: Plaintiff files suit for damages for wrongful dispossession and loss of profits.

Arguments

Plaintiff

Receipt was taken by coercion/undue influence, not a free act.
NDMC conducted a forcible takeover despite pending proceedings.
Entitled to damages for wrongful dispossession and lost profits.

NDMC

Possession was lawful and/or voluntarily surrendered by receipt.
Damages claimed are uncertain and speculative.

Judgment

Held: The receipt dated 7 Aug 1976 was obtained by undue influence and coercion. There was no voluntary surrender. The suit was decreed for Rs. 9,11,525.12 with costs and 12% p.a. interest.

Damages: Uncertainty in exact computation did not shield NDMC from liability.

Ratio Decidendi

A document taken under coercion/undue influence cannot validate dispossession. Damages must be awarded for the proven wrong; lack of mathematical precision does not defeat compensation.

Why It Matters

Checks abuse of authority during sensitive periods like the Emergency.
Clarifies that threat-induced “consent” is not consent.
Reaffirms that damages are payable even when exact figures need reasonable estimation.

Key Takeaways

Coercion kills consent—forced receipts don’t validate surrender.
Processes matter—don’t bypass pending legal proceedings.
Uncertain ≠ zero—damages are still assessed on best evidence.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Force? No Force-of-Law.”

Spot the Force: Was consent free?
Scrap the Paper: If not, receipt/surrender fails.
Set the Loss: Award fair damages on evidence.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Was the 7 Aug 1976 receipt voluntary or obtained by undue influence/coercion?

Rule

Forced consent is invalid; damages payable even if precise assessment is hard.

Application

Threats (blank MISA warrant) and forcible takeover showed domination of will; profits loss proven on records.

Conclusion

Receipt invalid; damages Rs. 9,11,525.12 with costs and 12% p.a. interest.

Glossary

Undue Influence: When one party dominates another’s will and gets an unfair advantage.
Coercion: Consent obtained by threat or force; not legally valid.
Wrongful Dispossession: Taking possession without legal authority or due process.