Category: Tenders & Contracts

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…

Government Contract and Tender – Government contracts involve expenditure out of the public exchequer – Since they involve payment out of the public exchequer, the moneys expended must not be spent arbitrarily – State does not have absolute discretion while spending public money – All government actions including government contracts awarded by the State must be tested on the touchstone of Article 14

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S INDIAN MEDICINES PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. KERALA AYURVEDIC CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya…

Slump Sale Agreement – liability of the purchaser for the dues relating to activities and operations of the unit for the period anterior to 17.7.2010, could not therefore have been fastened on the appellant HELD that the liabilities for the transactions made prior to the sale agreement, are to be borne by the seller, U.P State Sugar Corporation .

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WAVE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

HELD It is the duty of the Court, while interpreting the contract to decipher the true and correct meaning the parties intended and enforce the rights arising out of the contract – Officers administering the contract will not have any discretion whatsoever to admit or deny escalation after the conditions specified in a contract are satisfied.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. M/S SEW CONSTRUCTION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Pamidighantam Sri…

HELD as the responsibility of loading and unloading of foodgrains from railway wagons is absent in the present contract. For this reason, the Corporation in the present contract has chosen not to include the power to recover demurrages and as such the expression “charges” cannot be interpreted to include demurrages.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ABHIJIT PAUL — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. )…

Section 67 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 makes it clear that if any promisee neglects or refuses to afford the promisor reasonable facilities for the performance of his promise, the promisor is excused by such neglect or refusal – Refusal of a contractor to continue to execute the work, unless the reciprocal promises are performed by the other party, cannot be termed as abandonment of contract

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRIPATI LAKHU MANE — Appellant Vs. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, MAHARASHTRA WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta…

Any contract of public service should not be interfered with lightly and in any case, there should not be any interim order derailing the entire process of the services meant for larger public good – Grant of interim injunction by the learned Single Bench of the High Court has helped no-one except a contractor

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. N.G. PROJECTS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S. VINOD KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…

You missed