ROLE OF DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION IN INDIAN CONTRACT LAW

This paper examines the application of Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, widely known as the Doctrine of Frustration, which discharges a contract when an unexpected event makes performance impossible. By focusing on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Company (1954), the study explores how Indian jurisprudence established strict boundaries for this doctrine. The court clarified that "impossibility" under Section 56 does not merely mean literal physical impossibility, but rather a complete destruction of the commercial object and underlying purpose of the contract. To evaluate how these foundational principles operate today, the paper contrasts the Satyabrata Ghose ruling with modern commercial challenges, specifically the COVID-19 lockdown lease disputes highlighted in cases like Ramanand v. Girish Soni. The comparison reveals a persistent legal tension between human empathy during financial crises and the commercial necessity for contractual stability. The analysis demonstrates that while the strict application of Section 56 can seem harsh on struggling parties—such as tenants facing zero income during lockdowns—it remains essential for maintaining predictability in business relations. Ultimately, the paper concludes that the doctrine serves as a narrow shield rather than an easy escape route, ensuring that contracts remain reliable commitments even during global disruptions.