Supreme Court of India Judgements

47295 Judgements hosted as on 26/10/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

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…

You missed

Constitution

Can’t Penalise Flat Buyers Who Relied On Official Documents : Supreme Court Directs Alternative Site Before Demolition

Oct 26, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Mere Suit Seeking Recovery Of Possession Not Sufficient When Plaintiff’s Title Is Disputed

Oct 24, 2026 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Supreme Court Quashes Blacklisting Of Drug Supplier Over Quality Failure As Retesting Opportunity Denied

Oct 23, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Accident Claims | Victim Requiring Lifelong Attendant Can Be Considered 100% Functionally Disabled

Oct 23, 2026 sclaw