Is Enforcing Force Majeure in times of Coronavirus Lockdown Justified?

Must Read

India’s International ‘Retrospective Taxation’ Regime Vis-a-Vis PCA Rulings in Vodafone and Cairn in 2020

The imposition of retrospective taxation of foreign companies doing business in India has been at the helm of controversy...

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Follow us

The Indian Contract Act, 1972 governs legally enforceable agreements between two or more parties. In addition to required pre-requisites and enforceable conditions, the Act also contains provisions wherein a contract cannot be enforced, and provides reasonable defences to defaulting parties when required. One such defence available to parties is the defence of Force Majeure.

The term ‘Force Majeure’ is derived from a French term which means ‘superior force’. Black’s Law Dictionary defines Force Majeure as ‘an event or effect that can be neither anticipated nor controlled.’

The occurrence of an event under Force Majeure protects a defaulting party from liability. Section 32 and 56 are the provisions under Indian Contract act which provide the laws relating to Force Majeure. While Section 32 elaborates about contingent contracts, stating that such contracts can be enforced if the event relied upon does not take place, Section 56 terms agreements wherein it is impossible to perform the same void.

A Force Majeure clause intends to provide parties with defence from suffering consequences of something of which they have no control over. The burden of proof in the case of Force Majeure lies on the party claiming a Force Majeure event. To avail defence of Force Majeure, the party claiming the Force Majeure has to prove that the event is beyond its control and could not be avoided even if that party has acted diligently.

The Force Majeure clause in the contract is to be referred to and perused carefully, along with the facts of the matter under dispute. In the absence of a Force Majeure clause, the parties have to refer to the factors and other clauses in the contract. In the case of an absence of a Force Majeure Clause, Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act can be utilised to prove the principle of Frustration of the Contract.

Additionally, it has to be proven that the parties which defaulted could not have foreseen or prevented the events which rendered it impossible for the parties to perform their obligations. The defence of Force Majeure is important to ensure that parties are not penalised for conditions that they have no control over or is unforeseeable by the party.

Is Enforcing Force Majeure in times of Coronavirus Lockdown Justified?

Typically, Force Majeure include natural calamities, war-like situations, epidemics, pandemics and others. With the Government enforcing lockdowns to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic resulting in all industries shutting down their factories and offices, it is important to look into whether Force Majeure can be applied as a defence in the case inability of parties to perform the contract.

With the drastic disruption of supply chains and limitation in the number of middlemen, there will likely be many contracts wherein the parties will delay their performance or default. COVID being a pandemic is included in the events provided under Force Majeure, however, it is more important to look into the foreseeability and prevention of the losses incurred which determines whether the lockdowns can be used as a defence to avoid penalties.

While the Pandemic arrived in India after other countries, the determination of its impact is difficult to ascertain.  Additionally, looking at the rapid spread of the virus and the time taken to ascertain the symptoms among individuals, it is proven that there is no preventive measure/s taken to minimize the risks. Hence, it could be said that the pandemic was not only beyond the control of humans to avoid, but its risks and consequences were unforeseeable.

The Ministry of Finance, on the 19th of February, released a notification clearing up the matter. The Ministry, accepting COVID – 19 as a “natural calamity” stated in the notification that the ‘Force Majeure clause may be invoked and used as a defence not to excuse a party’s non-performance entirely, but only suspends it for the duration of the Force Majeure event.’

On March 20, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy came out with a similar memorandum. Hence, for disputes arising out of contractual obligations to be fulfilled, the defence of Force Majeure can be adopted only to justify the delay of performance of the contract, but it does not justify the non-performance of a contract. Additionally, the defence can be applied for the period that the event persists for, and hence has limitations concerning the period as well.

Hence, given the present circumstances, it is acknowledged that there is a need to provide relief to parties that are unable to function as a result of the lockdown imposed as a result of the COVID–19 Pandemic.

Effects of Declaring COVID-19 as a Natural Calamities

With the lockdown in full force, providing relief through applying Force Majeure helps prevent losses for various parties. The Indian Government accepting the pandemic as a Force Majeure event helps parties avoid penalties that would arise as a result of an event beyond their control.

While the Government has accepted the defence of Force Majeure with certain limitations, it is yet to be observed as to how the Courts will interpret the Force Majeure provisions in relation the pandemic. In such cases, the courts will have to determine whether the performance of contractual obligations is impossible or whether the Doctrine of Frustration would be acceptable as means to reduce or avoid any liability by the party which has delayed or defaulted. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -