India: Law Related To Standard Form Of Contracts

Last Updated: 4 November 2013
Article by Vandana Pali

Standard contracts are contracts which are drafted by one party and signed by another party without any modification or change. Though standard contracts present the advantage of preprinted standard format; they are essentially "take it or leave it" contracts with no room for negotiations. These contracts are criticized for killing the bargaining power of the weaker party and open up wide opportunity for exploitation.

In Cheshire's Law of Contract, 12th Edition 'Use of standard form contracts' is dealt with at page 21 in following terms:

The process of mass production and distribution, which has largely supplemented if it has not supplanted individual effort, has introduced the mass contract -- uniform documents which must be accepted by all who deal with large-scale organizations. Such documents are not in themselves novelties; the classical lawyer of the mid-Victorian years found himself struggling to adjust his simple conceptions of contract to the demands of such powerful bodies as the railway companies. But in the present century many corporations, public and private, have found it useful to adopt, as the basis of their transactions, a series of standard forms with which their customers can do little but comply.



In the case of commercial contracts courts have repeatedly held that contracts even if entered into the standard format, are meant to be performed and not to be avoided. Unless it is shown that consent is obtained by fraud, mistake or duress a consent given by party to a contract cannot be vitiated. As defined under Section 13 of the Contract Act, 1872 two or more persons are said to consent, when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense. Consent, according to Section 14, is free, when it is not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Thus where the parties with equal bargaining powers have fairly consented to the terms of the contract without any fraud, duress or mistake courts have refused to interfere.


Courts have looked into the terms of the contract in relation to the bargaining powers of the parties and have interfered in cases where the bargaining power of the parties was not equal. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "if a contract or a clause in a contract is found unreasonable or unfair or irrational one must look to the relative bargaining power of the contracting parties. In dotted line contracts there would be no occasion for a weaker party to bargain or to assume to have equal bargaining power. He has either to accept or leave the services or goods in terms of the dotted line contract. His option would be either to accept the unreasonable or unfair terms or forego the service forever. With a view to have the services of the goods, the party enters into a contract with unreasonable or unfair terms contained therein and he would be left with no option but to sign the contract".

In Central Inland Transport Corporation Limited v. Brojo Nath, Hon'ble Apex Court while giving some illustrations of unreasonable and unfair clauses in contracts, based on unconscionable bargaining in para 90 of the decision and explaining the scope of expression "public policy", in para 93 held in para 94 that the type of contracts to which the principle formulated by us above applies, are not contracts which are tainted with illegality, but are contracts which contain terms, which are so unfair and unresonable that they shock the conscience of the court. It is apt to reproduce the relevant extract of para 90 as under:-

"90. This principle is that the courts will not enforce and will when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power. It is difficult to give an exhaustive list of all bargains of this type. No court can visualize the different situations which can arise in the affairs of men. One can only attempt to give some illustrations. For instance, the above principle will apply where the inequality of bargaining power is the result of the great disparity in the economic strength of the contracting parties. It will apply where the inequality is the result of circumstances, whether of the creation of the parties or not. It will apply to situations in which the weaker party is in a position in which he can obtain goods or services or means of livelihood only upon the terms imposed by the stronger party or go without them. It will also apply where a man has no choice, or rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard from or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a cause in that contract or form or rules may be. This principle, however, will not apply where the bargaining power of the contracting parties is equal or almost equal. This principle may not apply where both parties are businessmen and the contract is a commercial transaction. In today's complex world of giant corporations with their vast infra-structural organizations and with the State through its instrumentalities and agencies entering into almost every branch of industry and commerce, there can be myriad situations which result in unfair and unreasonable bargains between parties possessing wholly disproportionate and unequal bargaining power. These cases can neither be enumerated nor fully illustrated. The court must judge each case on its own facts and circumstances."

Thus courts will not enforce and will, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contact or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power. This principle, however, will not apply where the bargaining power of the contracting parties is equal or almost equal or where both parties are businessmen and the contract is a commercial transaction.

Further cases where the terms of the contract are unreasonable as to the nature of the contract courts have struck them out following the principles as laid down under Contract Act or under common law. In M Siddalingappa v. T Nataraj , where applicability of the clause printed on the back of the laundry receipt which read as:

"All articles for cleaning and dyeing are accepted on conditions that the company shall incur no liability in respect of any damage which may occur and for delay or in the event of loss for which the company may accept the liability which shall in no case exceed eight times the cleaning charges." was in question Court held that petitioner is, undoubtedly, a bailee in respect of the sarees given to him and there is a minimum duty of care imposed upon all bailees under Section 151 of the Contract Act which they cannot contract themselves out of it is not subject to any contract to the contrary between the parties. Under that section, in all cases of bailment, the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would in similar circumstances take of his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed. Once that minimum duty is imposed upon the bailee by the law, a breach of that duty undoubtedly clothes the party affected with the right to recover damages commensurate with the consequences".


Basic test of "unconscionability" of contract is whether under circumstances existing at time of making of contract and in light of general commercial background and commercial needs of particular trade or case, clauses involved are so one-sided as to oppress or unfairly surprise party.

Precursors of Unconscionability: Courts of equity did not share the reluctance of common law courts to police bargains for substantive unfairness. Though mere "inadequacy of consideration" alone was not a ground for withholding equitable relief, a contract that was "inequitable" or "unconscionable" one that was so unfair as to "shock the conscience of the court" would not be enforced in equity.

In Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board and another, Supreme Court of India refused to interfere in adhesion contract on the ground that it was not unconscionable so as to "shock the conscience of the court"


Courts have strictly ruled against those standard contracts which exploit the position of an employee vis a vis the employer. They have repeatedly held that in case of employment contract between the employer and employee, there is a universal tendency on the part of the employer to insert those terms, which are favorable to him in a printed and standard form, leaving no real meaningful choice to the employee except to give assent to all such terms. In such a situation the parties cannot said to be in even position possessing equal bargaining power. Where the parties are put on unequal terms the standard form of contract cannot be said to be the subject-matter of negotiation between the parties and the same is said to have been dictated by the party whose higher bargaining power enable him to do so.

In Superintendence Company of India (P) Ltd v. Sh. Krishan Murgai, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

"It is well settled that employees covenants should be carefully scrutinized because there is inequality of bargaining power between the parties; indeed no bargaining power may occur because the employee is presented with a standard form of contract to accepts or reject. At the time of the agreement, the employee may have given little thought to the restriction because of his eagerness for a job; such contracts "tempt improvident persons, for the sake of present gain, to deprive themselves of the power to make future acquisitions, and expose them to imposition and oppression."

Such a protection is also given against the action of the state where the Courts have ruled that that the action of the State in contractual field also must be fair and reasonable. The requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution should extend even in the sphere of contractual matters for regulating the conduct of the State activity. Applicability of Article 14 to all executive actions of the State being settled, the State cannot cast of its personality and exercise unbridled power unfettered by the requirements of Article 14 in the sphere of contractual matters and claim to be governed therein only by private law principles applicable to private individuals whose rights flow only from the terms of the contract without anything more. It is not as if the requirements of Article 14 and contractual obligations are alien concepts, which cannot co-exist. Therefore, total exclusion of Article 14 non-arbitrariness which is basic to rule of law - from State actions in contractual field is not justified. This is more so when the modern trend is also to examine the unreasonableness of a term in such contacts where the bargaining power is unequal so that these are not negotiated contracts but standard form of contracts between unequals. Bringing the State activity in contractual matters also within the purview of judicial review is inevitable.


Despite absence of a specific legislation courts have shown a marked willingness to interfere with standard form of contracts where there is evidence of unequal bargaining power. Courts have given reliefs in cases where weaker party has been burdened with unconscionable, oppressive, unfair, unjust and unconstitutional obligations in a standard form contract. In D.C.M. Ltd. v. Assistant Engineer (HMT Sub-Division), Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Kota where the division bench had to consider the question whether the Rajasthan State Electricity Board functioning under the Electricity Act of 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 could in exercise of its powers under Section 49 of the Supply Act require the consumer-appellant before them to pay by way of minimum charges at nearly three times the normal rate charged from other consumers being heavy industries consuming heavy demand of 25 MW. Even though the appellant before them, D.C.M. Ltd., had entered into such an agreement with the Board it was held that the said term in the agreement was unreasonable and consequently the demand of such excessive minimum consumption charges was not justified and could not be countenanced on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the Electricity Board was an instrumentality of the State. The Court in this connection had to consider the nature of the written agreements entered into by the consumers of the electricity with the Board which was a monopolist and the further question whether an apparently inconceivable and unjust term in the written contract could be enforced by the Board against the consumer. Following pertinent observations were made by J.S. Verma, C.J in paragraph 24 of the Report:

...We may further add that for the reasons already given it is obvious that the giving of such an undertaking by execution of the agreement was no doubt a conscious act of the petitioner, but in the circumstances it cannot be held to indicate the petitioner's willingness to be bound by such an onerous condition, if it had the option; It is obvious that there was no option to the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner voluntarily and willingly chose and accepted the more onerous condition of a higher rate instead of the normal rate for payment of minimum charges. The willingness to accept such an onerous term with free consent can be assumed only where a consumer has an option or in other words he can get the supply of electricity he wants even without agreeing to any such term specified by the Board for being incorporated in the written contract without execution of which the consumer cannot insist on supply of electricity to him. It is not the Board's case that it was willing to honour the petitioner's requisition and make the supply even without the petitioner undertaking in writing to pay minimum charges according to Clause 16(c). How can it be said that the petitioner willingly accepted this term when the fact is that it had no option in the matter. It is further observed that Assuming that reasonably sufficient notice of a standard form contract has been given to the person who receives the printed document, we must now consider the way in which the terms of the document are to be construed. Such is the disparity between the bargaining power of large enterprises (both private and public) and the consumer that terms have often been imposed upon him which are onerous or unfair in their application and which exempt the party putting forward the document, either wholly or in part, from his just liability under the contract. This may be one of the reasons why, at common law, the Courts evolved certain canons of construction which normally work in favour of the party seeking to establish liability and against the party seeking to claim the benefit of the exemption. The impression should not be given, however, that the" application of these canons of construction render exemption clauses generally ineffective. If the clause is appropriately drafted so as to exclude or limit the liability in question, then the Courts must (subject to the powers now conferred on them by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977) give effect to the clause. Moreover, as between businessmen, exemption clauses can perform a useful function in that they may, for example, anticipate future contingencies which hinder or prevent performance, establish procedures for the making of claims and provide for the allocation of risks as between the parties to the contract. In a business transaction, the effect of an exemption clause may simply be to determine which of the parties is to insure against a particular risk. Exemption clauses in business transactions are not necessarily unfair or inequitable. But even in business transactions the Courts must be satisfied that the clause, on its wording, does have the effect contended for by the person relying on it, that is, the party seeking to exclude or restrict his liability. (a) Strict interpretation of the clause. 'If a person is under a legal liability and wishes to get rid of it, he can only do so by using clear words.' The words of the exemption clause must therefore exactly cover the liability which it is sought to exclude. So an exemption clause in a contract excluding liability for 'latent' defects' will not exclude the condition as to fitness for purpose implied by the Sale of Goods Act."


1. MANU/SC/0772/1995

2. MANU/SC/0439/1986

3. AIR1969 Kant 154

4. (Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) at page 1367)

5. Farms worth on contract, 2nd Edn. 319,320 para 4.27

6. AIR1993 SC 2005

7. Unikool Bottlers v. Dhillon Cool Drinks, Pepsi Food Limited, AIR 1995 Delhi 25

8. AIR 1980 SC 171710. MANU/RH/0014/1988

9. Shrilekha vs. State of U.P, AIR 1991 SC 537

10. MANU/RH/0014/1988

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions