Kris Infra Limited (Referred as 'Kris Infra'), a large construction company engaged in commercial real estate development, entered into a comprehensive construction agreement with Sunder Lal Builders Private Limited (Ref

CS Professional · Drafting, Pleadings and Appearances · PYQS · June 2026
Kris Infra Limited (Referred as 'Kris Infra'), a large construction company engaged in commercial real estate development, entered into a comprehensive construction agreement with Sunder Lal Builders Private Limited (Referred as 'Sunder Lal Builders') for design and development of a multistorey commercial complex in Bengaluru. The agreement stipulated specific timelines for completion of various phases of the project along with detailed payment milestones. During the course of execution of the project, disputes arose between the parties regarding delays in construction and alleged deviations from agreed project specifications. Kris Infra alleged that Sunder Lal Builders failed to meet the contractual deadlines and did not adhere to the technical standards specified in the contract. On this basis, Kris Infra terminated the contract and withheld payments amounting to ₹ 20 Crore. Aggrieved by the termination and non-payment, Sunder Lal Builders instituted a civil suit before the competent Civil Court seeking recovery of the outstanding amount along with damages for wrongful termination of the contract. In response, Kris Infra denied the allegations and contended that the termination was justified due to breach of contractual obligations and substantial delay attributable to Sunder Lal Builders. The Court directed both parties to file their pleadings and supporting affidavit-in-evidence in order to determine the issues involved in the dispute. Trace out the Legitimacy of Sunder Lal Builders' Claim and also discuss the remedies available to Kris Infra Limited.

Answer & Explanation:

The claim of Sunder Lal Builders Pvt. Ltd. is prima facie maintainable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as it arises from a valid construction agreement and alleged non-payment of ₹ 20 crore. If the plaintiff proves substantial performance, adherence to specifications, and that termination was wrongful, it can claim recovery of dues and damages. However, its case depends on establishing that delays or deviations were not attributable to it or were condoned/waived by the defendant. On the other hand, Kris Infra Limited has strong defensive remedies. It can justify termination based on breach of contractual timelines and specifications, and deny liability for payment due to non-performance. It may also raise set-off or counterclaim for losses caused by delay, defective work, or cost overruns. Additionally, it can rely on contractual clauses relating to termination, liquidated damages, or performance standards. Thus, the legitimacy of the plaintiff's case hinges on proof of performance, while the defendant's remedy lies in justification of termination and counterclaim for breach, making the dispute fact-intensive.

Topics: Contract Law and Civil Procedure

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic