SATYABRATA GHOSE vs MUGNEERAM BANGUR & CO., AND ANOTHER

The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of frustration is part of the law of discharge of contracts due to supervening impossibility, governed by Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Court clarified that Section 56 applies to both physical impossibility and cases where the contract's purpose is fundamentally frustrated by unforeseen events. It emphasized that English law serves only as persuasive authority and that Indian law provides specific provisions for contingent contracts under Section 32. The ruling established that the court can declare a contract frustrated when circumstances fundamentally alter the agreement's basis, independent of the parties' intentions.