Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract
Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 deals with compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when t The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872.
When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.
Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.
Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract.When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract.
Explanation.In estimating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the contract must be taken into account.
Illustrations
(a) A contracts to sell and deliver 50 maunds of saltpetre to B, at a certain price to be paid on delivery. A breaks his promise. B is entitled to receive from A, by way of compensation, the sum, if any, by which the contract price falls short of the price for which B might have obtained 50 maunds of saltpetre of like quality at the time when the saltpetre ought to have been delivered.
(b) A hires Bs ship to go to Bombay, and there take on board, on the first of January, a cargo, which A is to provide, and to bring it to Calcutta, the freight to be paid when earned. Bs ship does not go to Bombay, but A has opportunities of procuring suitable conveyance for the cargo upon terms as advantageous as those on which he had chartered the ship. A avails himself of those opportunities, but is put to trouble and expense in doing so. A is entitled to receive compensation from B in respect of such trouble and expense.
(c) A contracts to buy of B, at a stated price, 50 maunds of rice, no time being fixed for delivery. A afterwards informs B that he will not accept the rice if tendered to him. B is entitled to receive from A, by way of compensation, the amount, if any, by which the contract price exceeds that which B can obtain for the rice at the time when A informs B that he will not accept it.
(d) A contracts to buy B's ship for 60,000 rupees, but breaks his promise. A must pay to B, by way of compensation, the excess, if any, of the contract price over the price which B can obtain for the ship at the time of the breach of promise.
(e) A, the owner of a boat, contracts with B to take a cargo of jute to Mirzapur, for sale at that place, starting on a specified day. The boat, owing to some avoidable cause, does not start at the time appointed, whereby the arrival of the cargo at Mirzapur is delayed beyond the time when it would have arrived if the boat had sailed according to the contract. After that date, and before the arrival of the cargo, the price of jute falls. The measure of the compensation payable to B by A is the difference between the price which B could have obtained for the cargo at Mirzapur at the time when it would have arrived if forwarded in due course, and its market price at the time when it actually arrived.
(f) A contracts to repair B's house in a certain manner, and receives payment in advance. A repairs the house, but not according to contract. B is entitled to recover from A the cost of making the repairs conform to the contract.
(g) A contracts to let his ship to B for a year, from the first of January, for a certain price. Freights rise, and, on the first of January, the hire obtainable for the ship is higher than the contract price. A breaks his promise. He must pay to B, by way of compensation, a sum equal to the difference between the contract price and the price for which B could hire a similar ship for a year on and from the first of January.
(h) A contracts to supply B with a certain quantity of iron at a fixed price, being a higher price than that for which A could procure and deliver the iron. B wrongfully refuses to receive the iron. B must pay to A, by way of compensation, the difference between the contract price of the iron and the sum for which A could have obtained and delivered it.
(i) A delivers to B, a common carrier, a machine, to be conveyed, without delay, to A's mill, informing B that his mill is stopped for want of the machine. B unreasonably delays the delivery of the machine, and A, in consequence, loses a profitable contract with the Government. A is entitled to receive from B, by way of compensation, the average amount of profit which would have been made by the working of the mill during the time that delivery of it was delayed, but not the loss sustained through the loss of the Government contract.
(j) A, having contracted with B to supply B with 1,000 tons of iron at 100 rupees a ton, to be delivered at a stated time, contracts with C for the purchase of 1,000 tons of iron at 80 rupees a ton, telling C that he does so for the purpose of performing his contract with B. C fails to perform his contract with A, who cannot procure other iron, and B, in consequence, rescinds the contract. C must pay to A 20,000 rupees, being the profit which A would have made by the performance of his contract with B.
(k) A contracts with B to make and deliver to B, by a fixed day, for a specified price, a certain piece of machinery. A does not deliver the piece of machinery at the time specified, and in consequence of this, B is obliged to procure another at a higher piece than that which he was to have paid to A, and is prevented from performing a contract which B had made with a third person at the time of his contract with A (but which had not been then communicated to A), and is compelled to make compensation for breach of that contract. A must pay to B, by way of compensation, the difference between the contract price of the price of machinery and the sum paid by B for another, but not the sum paid by B to the third person by way of compensation.
(l) A, a builder, contracts to erect and finish a house by the first of January, in order that B may give possession of it at that time to C, to whom B has contracted to let it. A is informed of the contract between B and C. A builds the house so badly that, before the first of January, it falls down and has to be re-built by B, who, in consequence, loses the rent which he was to have received from C, and is obliged to make compensation to C for the breach of his contract. A must make compensation to B for the cost of rebuilding the house, for the rent lost, and for the compensation made to C.
(m) A sells certain merchandise to B, warranting it to be of a particular quality, and B, in reliance upon this warranty, sells it to C with a similar warranty. The goods prove to be not according to the warranty, and B becomes liable to pay C a sum of money by way of compensation. B is entitled to be reimbursed this sum by A.
(n) A contracts to pay a sum of money to B on a day specified. A does not pay the money on that day, B, in consequence of not receiving the money on that day, is unable to pay his debts, and is totally ruined. A is not liable to make good to B anything except the principal sum he contracted to pay, together with interest up to the day of payment.
(o) A contracts to deliver 50 maunds of saltpetre to B on the first of January, at a certain price. B afterwards, before the first of January, contracts to sell the saltpetre to C at a price higher than the market price of the first of January. A breaks his promise.
In estimating the compensation payable by A to B, the market price of the first of January, and not the profit which would have arisen to B from the sale to C, is to be taken into account.
(p) A contracts to sell and deliver 500 bales of cotton to B on a fixed day. A knows nothing of Bs mode of conducting his business. A breaks his promise, and B, having no cotton, is obliged to close his mill. A is not responsible to B for the loss caused to B by the closing of the mill.
(q) A contracts to sell and deliver to B, on the first of January, certain cloth which B intends to manufacture into caps of a particular kind, for which there is no demand, except at that season. The cloth is not delivered till after the appointed time, and too late to be used that year in making caps. B is entitled to receive from A, by way of compensation, the difference between the contract price of the cloth and its market price at the time of delivery, but not the profits which he expected to obtain by making caps, nor the expenses which he has been put to in making preparation for the manufacture.
(r) A, a ship-owner, contracts with B to convey him from Calcutta to Sydney in A's ship, sailing on the first of January, and B pays to A, by way of deposit, one-half of his passage-money. The ship does not sail on the first of January, and B, after being in consequence detained in Calcutta for some time and thereby put to some expense, proceeds to Sydney in another vessel, and, in consequence, arriving too late in Sydney, loses a sum of money. A is liable to repay to B his deposit, with interest, and the expense to which he is put by his detention in Calcutta, and the excess, if any, of the passage-money paid for the second ship over that agreed upon for the first, but not the sum of money which B lost by arriving in Sydney too late.
Section 73, The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act 9 of 1872).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-12.pdf 2015-01-09 (not same-date ROPs order-11/13). CA 193/2015. Contract Act 74: a stipulated sum or forfeiture of earnest money is reasonable compensation only; it is not a windfall. Proof of actual loss is the ordinary rule, and s.73 supplies the measure. Earnest-money forfeiture is not automatic. Map contract-act 74 and 73.
On this section: s.73 supplies the measure of compensation for loss caused by breach. Read with s.74, the promisee recovers actual loss, not the labelled penalty; DDA could not keep the whole earnest deposit without proving that loss.
-
Incable Net(andhra) Limited vs Ap Aksh Broadband Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A breach of contract in the execution of an Engineering Procurement and Construction contract between a Special Purpose Vehicle company and its majority shareholder-contractor, when the minority shareholder's own Director had actively participated in approving and financing such contract, does not constitute oppression or mismanagement within the meaning of Sections 397, 398, 402, and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956. The remedy for such contractual failure lies under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, not under the oppression provisions of the Companies Act. Furthermore, a Director's fiduciary duty is owed to the Company and not to individual shareholders for the purpose of preventing the Company from entering into commercial contracts with its majority shareholders.
On this section: Remedy for breach of contract - Court indicated that remedy for breach of EPC contract lies under Section 73 of Contract Act, not under oppression provisions of Companies Act
-
Authorised Officer State Bank of India vs C. Natarajan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a bidder in an auction conducted under the SARFAESI Act and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 fails to deposit the entire sale price within the period allowed (maximum 90 days), the Authorized Officer's power to forfeit the initial deposit under Rule 9(5) is a statutory penalty that must be exercised reasonably but cannot be interfered with by courts merely because the secured creditor suffered no financial loss. The forfeiture serves the dual purpose of facilitating enforcement of security interest and preventing manipulation of auctions by defaulting borrowers. The SARFAESI Act, being special legislation, overrides general contract law principles. Validity of forfeiture must be judged on circumstances existing when the order was made, not on supervening events. Judicial review of forfeiture orders should be extremely reluctant unless a very exceptional case of patent arbitrariness or unreasonableness is established.
On this section: Provides for compensation for breach of contract; Court held that this section is insufficient to address interests of secured creditor in SARFAESI proceedings and does not dilute forfeiture provision
-
Phulchand Exports LTD vs Ooo Patriot
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a CIF contract, when a seller breaches fundamental terms regarding shipment timing and vessel destination (loading goods on a vessel not bound to the contract destination as first port of discharge), the prima facie rule of risk and property transfer under Section 26 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 is rebutted. The seller remains liable for non-delivery even after shipment of goods or delivery of shipping documents. A reimbursement clause in a CIF contract requiring the seller to reimburse the price paid if goods do not arrive within a specified period is a legitimate contractual term and not an unenforceable penalty under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, nor an unconscionable bargain under Section 23, when agreed between experienced businessmen with equal bargaining power in conformity with international trade practices. The expression 'public policy of India' under Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be given a wider meaning to include awards that are patently illegal, in addition to awards violating fundamental policy of Indian law, interests of India, or justice and morality.
On this section: Cited for the principle of compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 73
What have the courts held on Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act?
Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority (09 Jan 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.73 supplies the measure of compensation for loss caused by breach. Read with s.74, the promisee recovers actual loss, not the labelled penalty; DDA could not keep the whole earnest deposit without proving that loss. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Contract Act 73, section 73 Contract Act, section 73 of the Indian Contract Act. People searching for it also type contract act 73 and 74 and indian contract act 73. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority (09 Jan 2015).
When did Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act come into force?
Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, commonly called breach of contract or damages for breach, and cited as Contract Act 73, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 25 Apr 1872. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 23. What considerations and objects are lawful, and what not596 words
- 74. Compensation for breach of contract where penalty stipulated for577 words
- 28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceeding void512 words
- 25. Agreement without consideration, void, unless it is in writing and registered, or is a promise to compensate for something done, or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation law423 words
- 16. "Undue influence" defined397 words
- 133. Discharge of surety by variance in terms of contract393 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.