In Brief
A contractor for a government water supply project claimed recovery of money for work done, security deposit release, overheads, and loss of profit after the client suspended work due to disputes over pipe specifications and payment delays. The High Court rejected these claims, finding the contractor had abandoned the contract. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the Trial Court's decree. The Court held that the contractor's refusal to continue work—caused by the client's failure to pay bills, unavailability of agreed materials, and unilateral material contract modifications—did not constitute abandonment but was a justified response to the client's breach. Under Section 67 of the Indian Contract Act, a promisor is excused from performance when the promisee fails to provide reasonable facilities.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.