Force majeure is a legal doctrine that excuses a party from performing its contractual obligations when performance becomes impossible or impracticable due to extraordinary events beyond the party's control, such as natural disasters, wars, epidemics, or government actions. Under Indian law, force majeure is addressed through Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (doctrine of frustration) and Section 32 (contingent contracts), and has specific implications in property transactions under RERA 2016, which recognises force majeure as a ground for extending project timelines.
Legal definition
Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides the statutory basis for the doctrine of frustration:
Section 56 — Agreement to do impossible act: A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful.
Section 32 addresses contingent contracts:
Section 32: Contingent contracts to do or not to do anything if an uncertain future event happens, cannot be enforced by law unless and until that event has happened.
RERA 2016 specifically recognises force majeure. Section 6 provides:
Section 6: The registration granted under Section 5 may be extended by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority on an application made by the promoter due to force majeure, on account of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project.
The proviso to Section 6 clarifies that the Authority shall give a detailed order regarding the extension, which shall not exceed one year.
How courts have interpreted this term
Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. [AIR 1954 SC 44]
In this foundational judgment, the Supreme Court established the Indian law on force majeure and frustration. The Court held that Section 56 is not limited to literal impossibility — it extends to situations where performance becomes impracticable due to an untoward event that "totally upsets the very foundation upon which the parties entered their agreement." However, the Court held that where the contract itself contains a force majeure clause (Section 32), dissolution occurs under the contract's own terms, not under Section 56.
Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission [(2017) 14 SCC 80]
The Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between contracts that contain a force majeure clause and those that do not. Where the contract contains a force majeure clause, the clause is to be interpreted in accordance with its terms (under Section 32). Where the contract is silent, Section 56 applies. The Court held that Section 56 applies only to situations of actual impossibility or frustration, not merely to commercial hardship or increased costs.
M/s Haldilal Udhyog v. State of Rajasthan [(2000) 3 SCC 377]
The Court held that force majeure events must be beyond the control of the parties and must not have been foreseeable at the time of contracting. Mere commercial difficulty, financial hardship, or unexpected increase in costs does not constitute force majeure. The burden of proving that the event qualifies as force majeure lies on the party seeking to invoke it.
Types of force majeure events
Force majeure events recognised in Indian property law include:
- Natural disasters: Earthquakes, floods, cyclones, droughts, tsunamis, landslides
- Epidemics and pandemics: The COVID-19 pandemic was recognised as a force majeure event by multiple courts and RERA authorities
- Government actions: Legislative changes, regulatory orders, acquisition proceedings, court-ordered moratoriums
- War and civil unrest: Armed conflict, riots, strikes, blockades
- Infrastructure failures: Severe shortage of building materials, prolonged disruption of supply chains (in limited circumstances)
Events not typically treated as force majeure: normal monsoon rains, routine regulatory approvals, financial difficulties of the developer, labour shortages due to poor planning, or delays caused by the developer's own default.
Why this matters
Force majeure has become one of the most frequently invoked defences in Indian real estate litigation, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic. Developers across India sought extensions under Section 6 of RERA, claiming that lockdowns, labour migration, and supply chain disruptions constituted force majeure events that prevented timely completion of projects. RERA authorities in most states granted extensions of 6 to 12 months for the pandemic period.
For homebuyers, understanding the limits of force majeure is essential. While genuine force majeure events justify reasonable extensions, developers have historically included sweeping force majeure clauses in builder-buyer agreements that cover events within the developer's control — such as delays in obtaining regulatory approvals, financial difficulties, or inability to secure labour. Under RERA, such expansive clauses cannot override the statutory right to interest under Section 18 for delays not attributable to force majeure.
Practitioners should note that Section 56 does not apply to completed transfers. The Supreme Court has held that a completed conveyance cannot be set aside on grounds of frustration. Force majeure applies only to executory contracts — agreements to sell, builder-buyer agreements, and lease agreements where obligations remain to be performed. Once a sale deed is registered and title has passed, the doctrine of frustration has no application.
Related terms
Related concepts:
Related instruments:
Frequently asked questions
Is COVID-19 considered force majeure in Indian property law?
Yes. Most RERA authorities across India recognised the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns as a force majeure event, granting developers extensions of 6 to 12 months under Section 6 of RERA. However, the extension was limited to the actual period of disruption, and developers could not claim extended force majeure for periods after normalcy was restored.
Can a builder claim force majeure for financial difficulties?
No. Financial difficulties, cash flow problems, or inability to arrange project financing are not force majeure events. The Supreme Court has consistently held that commercial hardship or financial difficulties do not frustrate a contract. Under RERA, the developer's obligation to complete the project on time is not excused by financial problems — these are business risks that the developer assumed.
Does force majeure apply to lease agreements?
Force majeure can apply to executory obligations under lease agreements (such as the landlord's obligation to deliver possession or complete construction). However, it does not apply to the lease itself as a completed transfer. The Delhi High Court has held that Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act does not apply to lease agreements as regards the obligation to pay rent, as a lease is a completed conveyance of a right to enjoy property, not an executory contract.
What is the maximum extension a RERA authority can grant for force majeure?
Under the proviso to Section 6 of RERA 2016, the extension granted for force majeure shall not exceed one year. If the force majeure event persists beyond one year, the developer must apply for a fresh extension with updated justification. The authority must issue a detailed reasoned order for each extension.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.