Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Tenders & Contracts

Tenders & Contracts

Contract Act, 1872 – Section 65 – Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 – Section 18 – Refund of Entry Fee – If the party claiming restitution was equally or more responsible for the illegality (in comparison to the defendant), there shall be no cause for restitution

Mar 6, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH LOOP TELECOM AND TRADING LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant…

Tenders & Contracts

Work and Contract – Blacklisting/Banning – Considering the seriousness of the matter that due to the omission and commission on the part of the contractor a serious incident had occurred as there was a collapse of a ten meter slab while constructing a flyover in which one person died and eleven others injured, as such the contractor does not deserve any leniency

Feb 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S PANDA INFRAPROJECT LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Tenders & Contracts

HELD The Respondent had the option not to lease out its property to the Appellant. The situation of an owner of property, executing a lease agreement in respect of his property cannot be equated with a contract of employment executed by and between an employee and a mighty employer, where the employee has little option but to accept the terms and conditions offered by the employer.

Feb 6, 2022 sclaw

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS SENIOR MANAGER — Appellant Vs. M/S SHREE GANESH PETROLEUM RAJGURUNAGAR THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. LAXMAN DAGDU THITE — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee…

Tenders & Contracts

Government contracts – Understanding of public interest – – It is pertinent to remember that, by merely using grounds of public interest or loss to the treasury, the successor public authority cannot undo the work undertaken by the previous authority – Such a claim must be proven using material facts, evidence and figures – If it were otherwise, then there will remain no sanctity in the words and undertaking of the Government – Businessmen will be hesitant to enter Government contract or make any investment in furtherance of the same – Such a practice is counterproductive to the economy and the business environment in general.

Dec 5, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE VICE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHISHIR REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED AND…

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