Indian Oil v. Anand Chem Industries: A Tale of Breach of Contract and Frustration

I totally disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Oil v. Anand Chem Industries (1993 SCC 449). The court held that where a contract is frustrated due to non-availability of raw materials, the parties are released from their contractual obligations. But what about the express terms of the contract? Did the contract not specify alternative raw materials that could have been used in the event of non-availability? The court's decision raises more questions than answers, and it's a recipe for uncertainty in contract law. As a student of law, I'd say this judgment creates more loopholes than a well-crafted escape clause. For the Bar Exam or AIBE, you'd need to be aware of this judgment, but don't expect a high score merely by regurgitating the facts. Analyze the judgment critically and point out its shortcomings!