Evaluate contractual delay penalties, milestone breach deductions, and security deposit forfeitures. Test legal enforceability against Supreme Court standards in Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA.
Commercial contracts in India frequently feature liquidated damages (LD) clauses — especially in IT service agreements, construction EPC contracts, and consulting engagements. However, there is widespread confusion regarding whether an employer or buyer can automatically deduct the stipulated percentage from invoices.
In Indian jurisprudence, Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 governs this completely:
| Supreme Court Case | Judicial Finding |
|---|---|
| Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA (2015) 4 SCC 136 | Where damage can be proved, proving actual loss is mandatory. Forfeiture of earnest money / LD without loss is unlawful enrichment. |
| ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705 | Where loss is impossible or difficult to prove (e.g. national infrastructure delay), court may award genuine pre-estimate if reasonable. |
| Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Das (1964) 1 SCR 515 | Section 74 gives court the discretion to award only 'reasonable compensation' regardless of whether the clause is styled as penalty or LD. |
Unless the contract explicitly grants unilateral right of set-off without notice, deducting unliquidated or disputed damages from running invoices violates Section 73 & 74. In commercial arbitration, unilateral deductions without proving actual damages are frequently set aside with interest.
Standard industry practice for delay in service contracts is 0.5% per week of delay, subject to an aggregate cap of 5% to 10% of the total contract price. Clauses specifying 20%-50% or uncapped daily fines are consistently struck down as punitive.