By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 27 April 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice
About this article: A general explainer prepared by S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors on a recurring type of dispute. It does not report a specific judgment or order, names no parties and gives no case citation, so it should not be cited as authority. Law and practice change; please verify against the current statute and primary sources before relying on it.
Infrastructure and works contracts usually contain a force majeure clause that excuses performance, or extends time, when an event beyond a party's reasonable control prevents it. Where the contract does not cover the event, Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 on impossibility may be argued, but it is applied narrowly.
Employers often resist a force majeure claim for monsoon flooding on the footing that seasonal rain is foreseeable. Tribunals have considered the distinction between the kind of event and its severity. A routine monsoon is within the contractor's risk, but an event whose scale and duration go well beyond the normal range may qualify, depending on how the clause is worded, for instance whether it requires the event to be unforeseeable or only beyond reasonable control.
Time relief and cost relief are separate. A force majeure clause that excuses delay or liquidated damages does not by itself make the employer pay for idle machinery or labour unless the contract provides for cost reimbursement. Notice requirements in the clause are strictly applied.
Key Points
- Foreseeable seasonal weather does not automatically defeat force majeure, but the clause wording matters.
- Time relief and cost relief are separate unless the contract links them.
- Notice requirements in the clause are applied strictly.