• Today: October 31, 2025

satyabrata-ghose-v-mugneeram-bangur-1954-frustration-of-object

31 October, 2025
1051
Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur (1954) — Section 56 & Frustration of Object | The Law Easy
```

Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur (1954) — Section 56 & Frustration of Object

Supreme Court of India 1954 1954 SCR 310 Contract Law Section 56 By Gulzar Hashmi India 26 Oct 2025

Primary: Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur; Section 56; frustration of object; impossibility
Secondary: requisition; force majeure; wartime delay; land development

Hero image for Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur case explainer

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court explained Section 56. Impossibility is not only “cannot be done”. It also covers supervening events that break the foundation of the deal. Here, wartime requisition caused delay, but it did not destroy the core purpose. So, the contract was not discharged.

  • Frustration needs a blow to the root of the contract.
  • Mere delay or hardship is not enough.
  • Known wartime risks weigh against frustration.
```

Issues

  1. Was the contract discharged due to impossibility under Section 56?
  2. Did government requisition of land frustrate the object of the agreement?

Rules

Section 56 (Contract Act): Impossibility includes situations where a later event, outside both parties’ control and contemplation, destroys the very basis of the bargain.

  • Not limited to literal “impossible to perform”.
  • Test: Did the event make the expected performance radically different?
  • Known risks or temporary delay usually do not frustrate.

Facts — Timeline

Optional
Timeline visual for Satyabrata Ghose case

Land Development Plan

Company owned land near Dhakuria Lane, Kolkata. Plan: divide into plots and build apartments for residential sale.

Booking & Earnest Money

Private parties paid earnest money and got allotments. Balance payable after construction and delivery.

Wartime Requisition

During World War period, Government requisitioned the land. Work halted.

Company’s Offer

Either take back money and give up rights; or pay and take land, build after release.

Suit for Breach

Purchasers rejected both options and sued, claiming frustration/discharge and breach.

Arguments — Appellant vs Respondent

Purchasers (Appellants)

  • Government requisition made the contract’s purpose impossible.
  • Delay was indefinite and beyond control; foundation destroyed.
  • Refund and discharge should follow under Section 56.

Company (Respondents)

  • Wartime disruption was a known risk at the time of contracting.
  • Only delay, not destruction of purpose; performance still possible later.
  • Options were offered to reduce hardship; no frustration.

Judgment

Contract Not Discharged
Judgment illustration for Satyabrata Ghose case

The Supreme Court held that the contract was not frustrated. Wartime requisition did not make performance impossible in the legal sense. The event did not destroy the foundation of the bargain. Parties were aware of war conditions.

Key line: Section 56 covers supervening events that strike at the root of the contract; mere delay, even serious, is generally not frustration.

Ratio Decidendi

  • Impossibility = includes frustration where the basis collapses.
  • Requisition caused temporary suspension, not destruction of purpose.
  • Pre-known war risks reduce the case for frustration.

Why It Matters

This case draws the line between hardship and true frustration. It guides courts and drafters to use clear force majeure, suspension, and extension terms for government actions and delays.

Key Takeaways

  • Frustration needs a radical change to the bargain.
  • Temporary requisition ≠ automatic discharge.
  • Known risks weaken Section 56 claims.
  • Draft force majeure with requisition & delays in mind.
  • Prefer suspension/extension over termination.
  • Keep records of government actions and timelines.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “ROOTRisk knownObject intactOnly delayTest: radical change?

  1. Risk known: War risk was known.
  2. Object intact: Housing plan still possible later.
  3. Test: No radical change → no frustration.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Does wartime requisition discharge the contract by frustration under Section 56?

Rule

Frustration applies only if a supervening event destroys the contract’s foundation, making performance radically different.

Application

Requisition caused delay, not destruction. Parties knew war risks; performance remained possible after release.

Conclusion

No frustration; contract not discharged under Section 56.

Glossary (Easy English)

Frustration
Law says the contract ends because a later event kills its basic purpose.
Force Majeure
A clause listing events (war, requisition) that excuse or suspend performance.
Requisition
Government takes control of property for public use, usually temporarily.

Student FAQs

No. The requisition only delayed development. The core purpose—residential development—remained achievable later.

Ask if the supervening event destroyed the foundation of the contract and made performance radically different.

Yes. If a risk was known when the contract was made, courts are slow to find frustration for that risk.

Use force majeure clauses that allow suspension/extension for requisition or similar events instead of treating them as discharge.

Comment

Nothing for now