Contract Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Enforcing Foreign Awards in Arbitration Cases: Government of India vs. Vedanta Limited (2020)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 47, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 48, Arbitration Law, Contract Law, Contract Law with Article 15.5, Enforcement of Foreign Awards, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, Production Sharing Contract, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Enforcing Foreign Awards: Government of India vs. Vedanta Limited (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Limitation period for enforcing foreign arbitral awards in India. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Government of India vs. Vedanta Limited [Judgment Date]: 16 September 2020 Date of the Judgment: 16 September 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 728 Judges: […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Enforcing Foreign Awards in Arbitration Cases: Government of India vs. Vedanta Limited (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Change in Law” in Power Purchase Agreements: Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Adani Power Rajasthan Limited (2020)

/ Arun Mishra, Change in Law Clause, Contract Law, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 63, Judges, M.R. Shah, Power Purchase Agreement, Tariff Determination, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Clarifies “Change in Law” in Power Purchase Agreements: Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Adani Power Rajasthan Limited (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a change in domestic coal policy constitutes a “Change in Law” event under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). CASE TYPE: Electricity Law, Contract Law Case Name: Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Supreme Court Clarifies “Change in Law” in Power Purchase Agreements: Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Adani Power Rajasthan Limited (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Intervention in Tender Process: Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation vs. Star Agriwarehousing and Collateral Management Limited & Ors. (2020)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Constitution of India, Constitution of India with Article 136, Contract Law, Hemant Gupta, Interim Orders, Judges, Public Interest, Public Law, Public Procurement, Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013, Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 with Rule 70(8), State Revenue, Tender Process

Supreme Court Intervention in Tender Process: Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation vs. Star Agriwarehousing and Collateral Management Limited & Ors. (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue revolves around the permissibility of interim orders that halt the execution of contracts following a completed tender process, especially when such orders impact public interest and state revenue. CASE

Supreme Court Intervention in Tender Process: Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation vs. Star Agriwarehousing and Collateral Management Limited & Ors. (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Reimbursement of Sales Tax in Works Contracts: State of Orissa vs. M/S B. Engineers & Builders Ltd. (2020) INSC 381 (5 June 2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 366(29-A), Contract Law, Contract Law with Clause 45.2, Dinesh Maheshwari, General Conditions of Contract, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, Tax Law, Tax Law with Section 5(2)(AA)

Supreme Court Clarifies Reimbursement of Sales Tax in Works Contracts LEGAL ISSUE: Whether contractors are entitled to reimbursement of sales tax on works contracts under specific contractual clauses. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Tax Law. Case Name: State of Orissa vs. M/S B. Engineers & Builders Ltd. & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 5 June 2020 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Clarifies Reimbursement of Sales Tax in Works Contracts: State of Orissa vs. M/S B. Engineers & Builders Ltd. (2020) INSC 381 (5 June 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies land use for infrastructure projects: Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor case (2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Contract Law, Contractual Obligations, Dinesh Maheshwari, Framework Agreement, Judges, Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, Outline Development Plan, Section 15, Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961

Supreme Court clarifies land use for infrastructure projects: Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor case (2020) Date of the Judgment: 19 May 2020 Citation: 2020 INSC 433 Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J. Can a project proponent deviate from the original project plan for an infrastructure corridor? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question

Supreme Court clarifies land use for infrastructure projects: Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor case (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies distinction between lease and agreement to lease in contract dispute: Ramnath Agrawal vs. Food Corporation of India (2020) INSC 374

/ Agreement to Lease, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Judges, Krishna Murari, Lease of Immovable Property, N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 105

Supreme Court clarifies distinction between lease and agreement to lease in contract dispute: Ramnath Agrawal vs. Food Corporation of India (2020) INSC 374 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an agreement is a lease under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or merely an agreement for a lease. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Property Law Case

Supreme Court clarifies distinction between lease and agreement to lease in contract dispute: Ramnath Agrawal vs. Food Corporation of India (2020) INSC 374 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Regulatory Authority’s Decision on Power Purchase Agreement: CLP India vs. Gujarat Urja (2020)

/ Arun Mishra, Contract Law, Contractual Obligations, Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 with Section 43A, Judges, Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), S. Ravindra Bhat, Tariff Determination, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds Regulatory Authority’s Decision on Power Purchase Agreement: CLP India vs. Gujarat Urja (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of amended tariff notifications to existing Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs). CASE TYPE: Electricity Law, Contract Law, Regulatory Law. Case Name: CLP India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. & Anr. [Judgment Date]: May 6,

Supreme Court Upholds Regulatory Authority’s Decision on Power Purchase Agreement: CLP India vs. Gujarat Urja (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs Mittal Group to fulfill obligations in land dispute case: Ashish Seth vs. Sumit Mittal (24 April 2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Breach of contract, Contempt of Court Order, Contempt of Courts Act, Contempt Proceedings, Contract Law, Contract Law with Memorandum of Settlement (MOS), Judges, M. R. Shah

Supreme Court directs Mittal Group to fulfill obligations in land dispute case Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2020 Citation: Not Available Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., M. R. Shah, J. Can a party to a settlement agreement, which has become a court order, selectively comply with terms that benefit them while ignoring their obligations? The

Supreme Court directs Mittal Group to fulfill obligations in land dispute case: Ashish Seth vs. Sumit Mittal (24 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies execution of arbitration award for land price fixation: Rajasthan Udyog vs. Hindustan Engineering (2020) INSC 257

/ Arbitration Act, 1940 with Section 17, Arbitration Award Execution, Arbitration Law, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XXIII Rule 1, Contract Law, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, Judges, Specific Performance, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court clarifies execution of arbitration award for land price fixation: Rajasthan Udyog vs. Hindustan Engineering (2020) INSC 257 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitration award that determines compensation for land under an agreement for sale can be executed as a suit for specific performance when the arbitration was only for price fixation. CASE TYPE: Arbitration

Supreme Court clarifies execution of arbitration award for land price fixation: Rajasthan Udyog vs. Hindustan Engineering (2020) INSC 257 Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes PTI Selection in Haryana Due to Arbitrary Criteria Changes: Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. (2020) INSC 218 (08 April 2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 309, Estoppel, Judges, Navin Sinha, Recruitment Rules, Selection Process, Service Law

Supreme Court Quashes PTI Selection in Haryana Due to Arbitrary Criteria Changes Date of the Judgment: 08 April 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 218 Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., Navin Sinha, J. Can a selection process be deemed fair when the criteria are changed arbitrarily mid-way? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a

Supreme Court Quashes PTI Selection in Haryana Due to Arbitrary Criteria Changes: Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. (2020) INSC 218 (08 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Tender Process: Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. AMR Dev Prabha & Ors. (2020) INSC 229 (18 March 2020)

/ B. R. Gavai, Breach of contract, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(g), Contract Law, Judges, S. A. Bobde, Surya Kant, Tender Process

Supreme Court Upholds Tender Process in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a writ petition is maintainable in a tender process dispute where the primary grievance is a breach of contract and not a violation of public law. CASE TYPE: Contract/Tender Law Case Name: The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. vs. AMR

Supreme Court Upholds Tender Process: Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. AMR Dev Prabha & Ors. (2020) INSC 229 (18 March 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court: Lease of Blacklisted Rice Mills Doesn’t Allow Paddy Allocation (2020)

/ B.R. Gavai, Contract Law, Judges, Lease Agreements, Registration Act, 1908, Registration Act, 1908 with Section 17(1)(d), S.A. Bobde, Surya Kant

Supreme Court: Lease of Blacklisted Rice Mills Doesn’t Allow Paddy Allocation (2020) Date of the Judgment: 06 March 2020 Citation: Food Corporation of India vs. M/s. V.K. Traders (2020) INSC 208 Judges: S.A. Bobde (CJI), B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant JJ. Can a new entity that leases a blacklisted rice mill be eligible for paddy

Supreme Court: Lease of Blacklisted Rice Mills Doesn’t Allow Paddy Allocation (2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top