Indian Aluminium v. M/s. P.K. Gupta (1975)

I think this case is a masterclass in contractual interpretation. So basically, Indian Aluminium awarded a contract to P.K. Gupta to do some work on their building, but Gupta did a super lazy job and Indian Aluminium paid him anyway. Later, Indian Aluminium tried to cancel the contract, but Gupta argued that the contract still stood. The court actually agreed with him, saying that even though the work was subpar, the contract wasn't technically breached.

The community, what's your take on this? Do you think the court got it right or was this a weird technicality? I personally think Gupta got off lightly, but I guess you can argue that the contract was clear and Indian Aluminium messed up by not doing their due diligence. What do you guys think?