The Doctrine of Frustration of Contract I / Section 56 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 III

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

“This Court in Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co., AIR 1954 SC 44 considered the applicability of Sections 32 and 56 while considering the Doctrine of Frustration of Contract.

Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. v. Khyaliram Jagannath, AIR 1968 SC 522 held, if the contract contains implied or expressly a term according to which it would stand discharged on the happening of certain contingencies, dissolution of the contract would take place under the terms of the contract itself and such cases would be outside the purview of Section 56. Such cases have to be dealt with under Section 32.

In Boothalinga Agencies v. V.T.C. Poriaswami Nadar, AIR 1969 SC 110 again the Doctrine of Frustration of Contract came up for consideration. It was held that the provisions of Section 56 could not apply to self-­induced frustration.”

– Hon’ble Justice Arun Mishra, National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India v. Alimenta S.A., [Civil Appeal No. 667 of 2012].

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.