9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 62 of the Contract Act in relation to a breach of contract. Analysis: The case involved a dispute over the repayment of a loan as per a bond executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant failed to repay the loan as agreed and proposed a new arrangement, which he also failed to fulfill. The plaintiff sought to recover the full amount due under the original bond. The Subordinate Judge initially awarded the full amount to the plaintiff, but the Additional District Judge modified the decree, allowing only a partial amount based on the application of Section 62 of the Contract Act. The higher court disagreed with this application, stating that Section 62 does not apply after a breach of the original contract. The court referenced established legal principles from authoritative texts to explain that parties can only substitute or rescind a contract before a breach occurs. In this case, since the defendant breached the new arrangement and failed to provide the promised satisfaction, the plaintiff was entitled to revert to the original contract terms for enforcement. The court emphasized that Section 63 of the Contract Act allows parties to dispense with or remit performance, extend time, or accept satisfaction, but the defendant must fulfill the agreed terms for it to be valid. In this case, the defendant did not fulfill the new arrangement, and the plaintiff did not intend to accept mere promises without actual performance. Therefore, the court concluded that the plaintiff was within his rights to seek enforcement of the original bond due to the defendant's breach and non-performance of the new agreement. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Additional District Judge, and reinstated the decree of the Subordinate Judge, awarding costs to the plaintiff in all courts.
|
