Category: Tenders & Contracts

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s order, restored the Single Judge’s order, and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the principles of delay and latches in judicial proceedings – The Court reasoned that the writ petitioner’s delay in asserting rights and acquiescence to the Corporation’s actions warranted dismissal of the writ petition – The Court cited precedents stating that delay defeats equity and that the High Court may refuse to exercise its extraordinary powers if there is negligence or omission on the part of the applicant – The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and latches, with no order as to costs.

2024 INSC 314 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MRINMOY MAITY — Appellant Vs. CHHANDA KOLEY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar, JJ.…

Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015 (as amended by Mineral (Auction) Amendment Rules, 2017) – Rule 9(10), Rule 9(11) and Rule 9(12) – The State Government is expected to be aware of the commercial worth of the natural resources being tendered or auctioned, as well as their potential future earning capacity – Consequently, the statutory regulations outline a bid cum e-auction process that involves not only shortlisting technically qualified bidders but also evaluating specific bids to ensure they meet eligibility criteria for participation in the e-auction – The rules incorporate various safeguards to guarantee transparency and objectivity throughout the bidding process.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF JHARKHAND — Appellant Vs. SOCIEDADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.V.N. Bhatti and Sanjiv Khanna,…

Interpretation of Contract – A commercial document cannot be interpreted in a manner that is at odds with the original purpose and intendment of the parties to the document – A deviation from the plain terms of the contract is warranted only when it serves business efficacy better.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RATNAGIRI GAS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya…

Work Agreement – Payments and Advances – Payment has to be made in the foreign currency only along with computed interest – It would be open for the parties to pay and the other parties claiming to accept the Indian currency either at the current rate or at the agreed rate but this Court cannot meddle with the terms of the agreement or the award or the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 24.02.2015.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ROYAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath, JJ.…

Powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters – – Courts will not interfere by exercising powers of judicial review even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out – Power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH TATA MOTORS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY & TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING (BEST) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya…

HELD Refund of price of idustrial plot – cheque issued to him was returned and HSIDC had the benefit of those monies all these years. In these circumstances, HSIDC is directed to refund the sum of Rs. 1,66,425/- with interest at 6% p.a. from 18.09.1998 till date. The amounts shall be paid to the appellant, within six weeks

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMAN SEMI-CONDUCTORS (PVT.) LTD. — Appellant Vs. HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and…

Contract – Loss of transportation charges – It would be extremely unfair and unjust, apart from being an arbitrary action in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India that IPCL is charged for loss of transportation charges when it is mandated to lay down its own pipelines and not to transport the gas through the HBJ pipeline

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S. INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORP. LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.