Madras High Court: Forfeiture of Security Deposit Unsustainable, Interest Slashed from 24% to 12%

”

Home

Top Stories
Article
MADRAS HIGH COURT: FORFEITURE OF SECURITY DEPOSIT UNSUSTAINABLE, INTEREST SLASHED FROM 24% TO 12%
Madras High Court partly allows petitions under Section 34, sets aside forfeiture of security deposit of Rs.75,75,480 and reduces interest from 24% to 12% per annum; upholds balance arbitral award.

Court Partly Upholds Arbitral Award; Forfeiture Set Aside and Interest Reduced
Meetu Kumari | Oct 20, 2025 |

Madras High Court: Forfeiture of Security Deposit Unsustainable, Interest Slashed from 24% to 12%

The petitions under Section 34 arose from a commercial lease dispute governed by a registered lease deed executed in 2018. The lessor had claimed that the lessee terminated the agreement prematurely, resulting in substantial financial loss. Thereafter, the lessor invoked the arbitration clause and raised composite claims amounting to crores, including recovery of unpaid rent, liquidated damages, forfeiture of the security deposit, and interest at 24% per annum. The arbitral tribunal, by its award dated 22.03.2021, accepted the primary claims in part and directed payment of Rs. 11,88,16,397, along with interest at 24% per annum from the date of claim until realisation, as well as Rs. 5,00,000 towards arbitration costs.

The aggrieved lessee challenged the award on multiple grounds, asserting that the contract had been frustrated for want of necessary statutory approvals and that the forfeiture clause was penal in nature. It was contended that the tribunal had ignored settled principles under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, and that the interest awarded was excessive and contrary to commercial fairness. The lessor, on the other hand, filed an application seeking enforcement of the award and deposit of the awarded sum.

Also Read
ITAT Confirms DTAA Exemption under Article 8, Holding Shipping Income Not Taxable in India
Issue Raised: Whether the arbitral award suffered from patent illegality in (i) upholding liquidated damages without proof of actual loss, (ii) permitting forfeiture of the entire security deposit, and (iii) awarding exorbitant interest at 24% per annum.

Also Read
Delhi High Court Allows De-Attachment of Bank Accounts on Deposit of 20% Demand
HC Held: The Court observed that the arbitral tribunal’s findings regarding the validity of termination and quantification of rent and damages were supported by evidence and hence not open to reappraisal under Section 34. However, it found the direction permitting forfeiture of the entire security deposit of Rs. 75,75,480 to be contrary to law, holding that such forfeiture amounted to imposition of a penalty beyond the terms of compensation contemplated under Sections 73 and 74. That portion of the award was therefore set aside.

The Court noted that the grant of interest at 24% per annum was excessive and disproportionate. It modified the rate to 12% per annum, reckoning from the date of the claim till realisation. The arbitral award dated 22.03.2021 stood confirmed.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

StudyCafe Membership
Join StudyCafe Membership. For More details about Membership Click Join Membership Button
Join Membership
In case of any Doubt regarding Membership you can mail us at contact@studycafe.in

Join Studycafe’s WhatsApp Group or Telegram Channel for Latest Updates on Government Job, Sarkari Naukri, Private Jobs, Income Tax, GST, Companies Act, Judgements and CA, CS, ICWA, and MUCH MORE!”

Join WhatsApp Group
Join Telegram Group
Follow On Google News
Tags: Madras High Court

Author Bio

Name: Meetu Kumari
Designation: Content Manager
Company: Studycafe
Location: Rajasthan, India
Total Posts: 521
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.

My Recent Articles
Supreme Court Upholds Armed Forces Tribunal’s Power to Substitute Conv