Contract Law

Supreme Court clarifies coal cost calculation in Power Purchase Agreement: Nabha Power Ltd. vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (2017)

/ Contract Law, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 63, Implied Terms, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Tariff Determination

LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) concerning the calculation of energy charges, specifically regarding the cost of coal. CASE TYPE: Contractual Dispute/Electricity Law. Case Name: Nabha Power Limited (NPL) vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) & Anr. Judgment Date: 05 October 2017 Date of the Judgment: 05 October 2017 Citation: 2017 […]

Supreme Court clarifies coal cost calculation in Power Purchase Agreement: Nabha Power Ltd. vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Specific Performance Suit Due to Lack of Ownership and Authority: Dharmabiri Rana vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma (2017) INSC 839

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Contract Law, Judges, Power of Attorney, Specific Performance, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 16

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit for specific performance of a contract can be decreed when the defendants deny ownership of the property and the authority of the alleged power of attorney holder. CASE TYPE: Civil – Specific Performance of Contract Case Name: Dharmabiri Rana vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma (D) Thr. Lrs. & Anr. Judgment Date:

Supreme Court Dismisses Specific Performance Suit Due to Lack of Ownership and Authority: Dharmabiri Rana vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma (2017) INSC 839 Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies interest on delayed payments in arbitration: Chittaranjan Maity vs. Union of India (2017)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31(7)(a), Breach of contract, Contract Law, General Conditions of Contract, J. Chelameswar, Judges, S. Abdul Nazeer

Date of the Judgment: October 3, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 849 Judges: J. Chelameswar, S. Abdul Nazeer Can an arbitrator award interest on delayed payments when the contract explicitly prohibits it? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case concerning a railway construction contract. The court clarified the extent of an

Supreme Court clarifies interest on delayed payments in arbitration: Chittaranjan Maity vs. Union of India (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Contractor Claims in Construction Dispute: National Building Construction vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Appeals, Breach of contract, Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Dipak Misra, Evidence, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 38, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, Payment Disputes

Can a contractor claim additional payments for work when there’s a discrepancy in government-prescribed rates? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a civil appeal concerning a construction contract. The court upheld the High Court’s decision, which had rejected certain claims made by a contractor for extra work. This case clarifies how

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Contractor Claims in Construction Dispute: National Building Construction vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Claims for Extra Work in Construction Contract: National Building Construction vs. State of Maharashtra (23 August 2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Appeals, Breach of contract, Civil Procedure, Contract Interpretation, Contract Law, Dipak Misra, Evidence, Judges, Pleadings, Terms and Conditions

Can a contractor claim additional payments for work beyond the original contract? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a construction contract dispute. The court examined whether a contractor was entitled to extra payments for stone pitching and water lead, ultimately ruling against the contractor. This judgment highlights the

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Claims for Extra Work in Construction Contract: National Building Construction vs. State of Maharashtra (23 August 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award in Gas Supply Dispute: Kamrup Industrial Gases Ltd. vs. Union of India (2017)

/ Arbitration Act, 1940, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 30, Breach of contract, Contract Law, D.Y. Chandrachud, Jagdish Singh Khehar, Judges, Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Supply Agreements

Can a court overturn an arbitral award because of non-production of documents, even if those documents were actually produced? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a dispute between Kamrup Industrial Gases Ltd. and the Union of India. This case revolves around a contract for the supply of industrial gases and the subsequent

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award in Gas Supply Dispute: Kamrup Industrial Gases Ltd. vs. Union of India (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Limitation on Hire Purchase Breach: Sundaram Finance vs. Noorjahan Beevi (2016)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Ashok Bhushan, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Hire Purchase Agreement, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 113, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 55

LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the limitation period for filing a suit for recovery of dues in a hire-purchase agreement breach. CASE TYPE: Civil (Hire Purchase Agreement) Case Name: M/S. Sundaram Finance Limited vs. Noorjahan Beevi and Another [Judgment Date]: 29th June 2016 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 29th June 2016 Citation: (2016) INSC 657 Judges: Justice

Supreme Court Upholds Limitation on Hire Purchase Breach: Sundaram Finance vs. Noorjahan Beevi (2016) Read Post »

Tender Process and CVC Guidelines: Supreme Court Decision in Haffkine Bio-Pharmaceutical Corp. Ltd. vs. Nirlac Chemicals (27 July 2017)

/ Breach of contract, Central Vigilance Commission Guidelines, Contract Law, Contract Law with Tender Conditions, Deepak Gupta, Judges, Madan B. Lokur, Public Procurement, Transparency in Tenders

Can a tender process be invalidated if Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) guidelines are not followed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this key question in a dispute over a tender for polio vaccine bulk drugs. This case highlights the importance of transparency and adherence to guidelines in government procurement processes. The judgment was delivered by

Tender Process and CVC Guidelines: Supreme Court Decision in Haffkine Bio-Pharmaceutical Corp. Ltd. vs. Nirlac Chemicals (27 July 2017) Read Post »

Arbitration Clause Survives: Supreme Court Rules on Validity of Arbitration Agreements When Main Contract is Void in Real Estate Dispute (May 10, 2013)

/ Altamas Kabir, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Contract Law, Independent Agreement, Judges, Kompetenz Kompetenz, Surinder Singh Nijjar, Void Contract

Date of the Judgment: May 10, 2013 Judges: Altamas Kabir, CJI and Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. Citation: (2013) INSC 341 Can an arbitration agreement remain valid even if the main contract containing it is declared void? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case involving a real estate development project. The

Arbitration Clause Survives: Supreme Court Rules on Validity of Arbitration Agreements When Main Contract is Void in Real Estate Dispute (May 10, 2013) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Cairn-Vedanta Deal, Dismissing PIL on ONGC’s Pre-emption Rights (2013)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 149, Constitutional Law with Article 151, Contract Law, Contract Law with Pre-emption Rights, Dipak Misra, Judges, K. S. Radhakrishnan, Production Sharing Contract

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) should have exercised its right of first refusal (RoFR) over the sale of Cairn India Limited (CIL) shares to Vedanta Resources Plc. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation, Contract Law, Corporate Law Case Name: Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. Union of India & Others Judgment Date: May

Supreme Court Upholds Cairn-Vedanta Deal, Dismissing PIL on ONGC’s Pre-emption Rights (2013) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Land Allotment Cancellation: RIICO vs. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation (2013)

/ B. S. Chauhan, Contract Law, Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1953, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1953 with Section 4(1), Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1953 with Section 6, V. Gopala Gowda

Date of the Judgment: February 12, 2013 Citation: 2013 INSC 102 Judges: Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J. and V. Gopala Gowda, J. Can a company that fails to develop land as per the lease agreement, still claim rights to it? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case between the Rajasthan State

Supreme Court Upholds Land Allotment Cancellation: RIICO vs. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation (2013) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Forged Lease, Reinforces Article 14: Usha Mehta vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2012)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 299, Contract Law, Fundamental Rights, G.S. Singhvi, Government Contracts, Judges, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya

Date of the Judgment: October 16, 2012 Citation: (2012) INSC 642 Judges: Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya Can a forged lease document grant any legal rights? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case involving a disputed land lease. The court upheld the decision of the Andhra Pradesh

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Forged Lease, Reinforces Article 14: Usha Mehta vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2012) Read Post »

Scroll to Top