Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on 04/06/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Tenders & Contracts

Contract Act Tenders & Contracts

Contract Law — Hire Agreement — Dispute over outstanding charges and vehicle possession — Plaintiff (Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board) hired out two tractor trailers to the defendants (M/s Shivhare Roadlines Pvt — Ltd.) with specific monthly charges — The defendants failed to pay charges and sought waiver — Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery.

May 28, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 556 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SHIVHARE ROADLINES PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar,…

Tenders & Contracts

Contract Law — Tender Documents — Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) — Interpretation of Tender Clauses — Mandatory vs — Optional Conditions — Clause 2.13(a)(xiii) and Clause 2.13(b) of the tender document specifying the form of EMD for out-of-state bidders used the word “may submit”, indicating an optional, not mandatory, requirement.

May 23, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 514 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RR CONSTRUCTIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. GAYATRI VENTURES AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran,…

Contract Act Tenders & Contracts

Contract Law — Termination and Blacklisting — Principles of Judicial Review — Courts must apply distinct standards of legality, rationality, and proportionality when reviewing administrative actions related to contract termination and blacklisting, considering the differing gravity of these measures and their consequences.

Apr 3, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 312 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S A.K.G. CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok…

Tenders & Contracts

Contract Law — Award of Tender — Judicial Review — High Court should exercise restraint when reviewing tender evaluation processes, especially in technical matters, unless there is clear evidence of mala fide, arbitrariness, or irrationality — A marginal difference in scores, as seen in this case, does not automatically warrant interference, especially when the owner has the right to accept or reject bids and the contract is already underway.

Mar 29, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 295 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. STEAG ENERGY SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Vs. GSPC PIPAVAV POWER COMPANY LTD. (GPPC) AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri…

Corporate Tenders & Contracts

Contract Act, 1872 — Section 133 — Discharge of surety by variance in terms of contract — A variance made without the surety’s consent in the terms of the contract between the principal debtor and the creditor discharges the surety only with respect to transactions occurring subsequent to the variance. The surety remains liable for the original amount guaranteed.

Mar 4, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 205 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHAGYALAXMI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. Vs. BABALDAS AMTHARAM PATEL (D) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal…

Tenders & Contracts

Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1456 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. SURGUJA BRICKS INDUSTRIES COMPANY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS ( Before : Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. )…

Tenders & Contracts

Coal Mining Bid — Rejection of — Eligibility criteria — Appellants challenged the rejection of its technical bid by Respondent-BCCL for a coal mining project, while the bid of Respondent No. 8 was accepted despite non-compliance with mandatory requirements —Whether BCCL was justified in rejecting the appellant’s bid and accepting the bid of Respondent No. 8, which did not meet the eligibility criteria — Appellant argues that the rejection was arbitrary and discriminatory — The appellant complied with all requirements, while Respondent No. 8 was allowed to submit missing documents later — BCCL argues that the appellant’s bid was non-compliant due to issues with the Power of Attorney — The Tender Committee could seek shortfall documents but not replace them —The Supreme Court found BCCL’s actions arbitrary and illegal, setting aside the rejection of the appellant’s bid and the acceptance of Respondent No. 8’s bid — The appellant’s Power of Attorney was valid and notarized before submission — BCCL’s acceptance of Respondent No. 8’s bid despite non-compliance was unjustified —Government bodies must act fairly and transparently in awarding contracts — The decision-making process must be free from arbitrariness and bias —The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside BCCL’s decision and any subsequent agreements, and directed BCCL to initiate a fresh tender process.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 757 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANSHIDHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi…

Tenders & Contracts

Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) — PPA between Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, and the Hirehalli Solar Power Project LLP — The respondent sought an extension of the scheduled commissioning date (SCD) under the force majeure clause of the PPA due to delays in obtaining necessary approvals and licenses —The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) rejected the force majeure claim, but the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) reversed the decision, finding that the delay was not attributable to the respondent and that the force majeure clause was applicable — The Supreme Court agreed with the APTEL’s findings and dismissed the appeals — The court also rejected the appellant’s contention that the APTEL’s direction to pay late payment surcharge to the respondent was unjustified, as it was rooted in the PPA and in furtherance of the intention of the parties.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 631 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. HIREHALLI SOLAR POWER PROJECT LLP AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam…

National Highways Authority Act Tenders & Contracts

National Highways Act, 1956 — National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 — The Court concluded that it would be impossible to return the collected toll/fee to the road users, and any order modifying the interim order would be detrimental and harmful to the road users as additional amounts would have to be collected to make up for the cost of the highway — Therefore, the Court allowed the present appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court — The Court also directed that the amount lying deposited in the nationalized bank along with interest may now be utilized by NHAI and would be treated as toll/fee collected from the users, and it would be accounted towards the actual cost to be recovered.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 556 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ARVIND KUMAR THAKUR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…

Tenders & Contracts

Contractual Dispute — Dispute over a contract for displaying advertisements on street hoardings — The main issue is whether the debarment of the appellant for five years by the Corporation was valid and justified — The appellant argued that the Corporation could only impose a penalty for late payments, not blacklisting, and that the blacklisting was disproportionate and unfair — The Corporation defended the blacklisting, citing the appellant’s failure to fulfill contractual obligations and non-payment of dues — The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s judgment and restored the Single Judge’s decision, ruling that the blacklisting was disproportionate — The Court found that the appellant had a bona fide dispute with the Corporation and that the blacklisting was a disproportionate penalty — The Court emphasized that blacklisting is a drastic remedy and should only be used in cases involving harm to public interest — The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the blacklisting order and restoring the Single Judge’s judgment.

Aug 13, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 589 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE BLUE DREAMZ ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

You missed

Service

Service Law — Promotion — Entitlement to promotion to Chief Medical Director (Higher Administrative Grade) in Indian Railway Medical Service — Appellant was denied promotion despite being eligible, with a junior officer being promoted instead — Appellant’s case was rejected by the Tribunal and High Court based on her grading in Annual Confidential Reports

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 29A — Mandate of Arbitrator — Extension of mandate — In the absence of specific statutory provisions, party autonomy and minimal judicial intervention are guiding principles — If a party participates in proceedings and does not object to the extension of mandate, they may be estopped from challenging the award on that ground after it is passed.

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) — Section 33 and Section 34(3) — Limitation for filing application to set aside arbitral award — Exclusion of time spent in disposal of applications under Section 33 — Court held that period spent in disposal of Section 33 applications by Arbitral Tribunal must be excluded for computing limitation under Section 34(3) of the Act, regardless of whether the Section 33 applications were ultimately allowed or dismissed.

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 15(1), 16, 39(a) & 39(c) — Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 (2016 Order) — Clause 2(p) — Government Order (G.O.) No — 6 of 2019 — Paragraph IV(10) — Exclusion of married daughter from definition of ‘family’ for compassionate appointment as fair price shop dealer — Held, exclusion is based on gender stereotypes and lacks rational nexus with the object of the scheme, violating Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution — Marital status cannot be the sole criterion for dependency — Dependency is a question of fact.

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw