PRAVIN C SHAH V MUHAMMED ALI

FACTS OF THE CASE PRAVIN C SHAH V MUHAMMED ALI:

1. The appellant, Pravin C Shah, entered into a contract with the respondent,
Muhammed Ali, for the supply of certain goods within a stipulated
timeframe.

2. The contract specified that the goods would be delivered by a certain date,
failing which the appellant would have the right to cancel the contract.

3. The respondent failed to supply the goods within the stipulated time and
sought an extension of the deadline, which the appellant agreed to.

4. Despite the extension, the respondent failed to supply the goods within the
extended timeframe.

5. The appellant then cancelled the contract and sued the respondent for
damages.

6. The respondent argued that the cancellation was not justified and that the
appellant was not entitled to damages.

7. The case was first heard by a lower court, which ruled in favor of the
respondent.

8. The appellant then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of India,
which eventually ruled in favor of the appellant and held that the
cancellation was justified and that the appellant was entitled to damages.

These facts formed the basis of the legal dispute in the case and were crucial in
determining the rights and obligations of the parties under the contract.
THE CASE OF PRAVIN C SHAH V MUHAMMED ALI DEALS WITH
THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:

1. Whether the appellant had the right to cancel the contract with the
respondent before the deadline for delivery had passed.

2. Whether the doctrine of anticipatory breach of contract is well-established in

law and applicable to the present case.

3. Whether the appellant was entitled to anticipate a breach of contract by the

respondent, given that the respondent had failed to meet an earlier deadline.

4. Whether the appellant was entitled to damages for the loss suffered as a
result of the respondent's failure to supply the goods, and if so, how the
damages should be calculated.

The case examines the rights and obligations of parties to a contract, as well as the
remedies available to them in the event of a breach of contract. The case also
highlights the importance of fulfilling contractual obligations within the stipulated
timeframes and the consequences of failing to do so.
IN THE CASE OF PRAVIN C SHAH V MUHAMMED ALI, THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING
JUDGMENT:

The court held that the appellant had every right to anticipate a breach of contract
by the respondent, given that the respondent had failed to meet an earlier deadline.
The doctrine of anticipatory breach of contract is well-established in law and
applicable to the present case.

The court further held that the appellant was entitled to cancel the contract with the
respondent, given the respondent's failure to supply the goods within the stipulated
time. The cancellation of the contract was justified and valid.

The court also held that the appellant was entitled to damages for the loss suffered
as a result of the respondent's failure to supply the goods. The damages were to be
calculated based on the market price of the goods at the time of the anticipated
delivery, and not at the time of the actual delivery.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of the appellant, Pravin C
Shah, and held that he had the right to anticipate a breach of contract by the
respondent, and was entitled to cancel the contract and claim damages for the loss
suffered as a result of the respondent's failure to supply the goods within the
stipulated time. The case highlights the importance of fulfilling contractual
obligations within the stipulated timeframes and the consequences of failing to do
so.
REASON FOR JUDGEMENT;

1. The appellant had the right to anticipate a breach of contract by the

respondent, given that the respondent had failed to meet an earlier deadline.
The doctrine of anticipatory breach of contract is well-established in law and
applicable to the present case.

2. The appellant was entitled to cancel the contract with the respondent, given
the respondent's failure to supply the goods within the stipulated time. The
cancellation of the contract was justified and valid.

3. The appellant was entitled to damages for the loss suffered as a result of the
respondent's failure to supply the goods. The damages were to be calculated
based on the market price of the goods at the time of the anticipated
delivery, and not at the time of the actual delivery.

The Supreme Court's reasons for judgment show that the court carefully considered
the facts of the case and the applicable legal principles to arrive at its decision. The
court's ruling emphasized the importance of fulfilling contractual obligations and
the consequences of failing to do so.
SIMILAR CASES THAT DEAL WITH THE DOCTRINE OF
ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF CONTRACT AND THE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE TO A PARTY IN THE EVENT OF A BREACH:

1. Hochster v. De La Tour: This case, decided in 1853 in the United Kingdom,

is often cited as the leading case on anticipatory breach of contract. The case
involved a contract for the defendant to engage the plaintiff as a tour guide.
The defendant later repudiated the contract before the start date, and the
plaintiff sued for breach of contract. The court held that the plaintiff was
entitled to treat the contract as terminated immediately, and did not need to
wait until the start date. The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to
damages.

2. Poussard v. Spiers and Pond: This case, decided in 1876 in the United
Kingdom, involved a contract for the plaintiff to perform in an opera. The
plaintiff fell ill before the performance and was unable to fulfill the contract.
The defendant terminated the contract and engaged another performer. The
plaintiff sued for breach of contract. The court held that the defendant was
entitled to treat the contract as terminated immediately, and was not required
to wait until the date of the performance. The court also held that the
defendant was entitled to damages.

3. Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co.: This case, decided in 1954
in India, involved a contract for the sale of jute. The defendant repudiated
the contract before the delivery date, and the plaintiff sued for breach of
contract. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to treat the contract as
terminated immediately, and was not required to wait until the delivery date.
The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the loss
suffered as a result of the defendant's breach of contract.

These cases demonstrate that the doctrine of anticipatory breach of contract is

well-established in law and that a party is entitled to cancel a contract and claim
damages in the event of a repudiation or breach of contract by the other party.