In a notable ruling, the Calcutta High Court clarified a fundamental aspect of contract law — that the cause of action in a contractual dispute arises only when there is a clear and unequivocal refusal by a party to perform its obligations under the agreement. The Court distinguished mere non-performance or delay from an express denial or repudiation, which is legally necessary to trigger the right to initiate proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of identifying a definite breach before approaching the court and has implications on how limitation periods are computed in such cases.
Facts of the Case
- The petitioner, Gautam Kundu, had entered into a contract with M/S Supertech Infrastructure for certain services or deliverables.
- Despite delays or inaction by the respondent, no formal communication of refusal was made by them.
- The petitioner initiated legal proceedings, arguing that the failure to perform was sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Key Issue
Whether mere non-performance of contractual terms, without an express or implied refusal, gives rise to a cause of action for legal remedy?
Arguments
- Petitioner’s Contention: The respondent’s inaction and delay should be treated as breach, and thus, the suit is within limitation.
- Respondent’s Contention: Since there was no clear refusal or repudiation, the cause of action hadn’t legally arisen at the time the suit was filed.
Court’s Observations
- The Court referred to settled principles of contract law, distinguishing between non-performance and repudiation/refusal.
- It held that limitation or legal action cannot be triggered by mere lapse of time or delay in performance unless there’s a categorical act showing unwillingness or denial to perform the contract.
- The Court emphasized that “cause of action arises only when the aggrieved party has knowledge of a definite breach or denial.”
Judgment
The Court ruled in favour of the respondent, holding that:
- There was no clear refusal by the defendant to perform the contractual obligations.
- Hence, the suit was premature, and the cause of action had not crystallized.
Legal Principle Established
A cause of action in contractual disputes emerges only from an explicit refusal or repudiation of performance, not from delay or non-performance in isolation.