Indian Contract Act, 1872

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Power Plant Refurbishment Dispute, Modifying Bank Guarantee Refund: M.P. Power Generation Co. Ltd. vs. Ansaldo Energia SPA (2018)

/ Arbitral Award, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 18, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 19, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Misrepresentation, S.A. Bobde

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Power Plant Refurbishment Dispute, Modifying Bank Guarantee Refund: M.P. Power Generation Co. Ltd. vs. Ansaldo Energia SPA (2018) Date of the Judgment: April 16, 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC 316 Judges: S.A. Bobde, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J. Can a party avoid a contract if they were misled about the […]

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Power Plant Refurbishment Dispute, Modifying Bank Guarantee Refund: M.P. Power Generation Co. Ltd. vs. Ansaldo Energia SPA (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation vs. S.N. Raj Kumar (2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Contract Law, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Judges, Property Law, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 10, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 5, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 8

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation vs. S.N. Raj Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a seller can enforce conditions from an allotment letter after executing a sale deed, transferring absolute ownership of property. CASE TYPE: Property Law/Contract Law Case Name: The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited and Others vs. S.N.

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation vs. S.N. Raj Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Penalty but Reverses Contract Termination in Power Purchase Dispute

/ Contract Law, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 73, Judges, Power Purchase Agreement, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

Supreme Court Upholds Penalty but Reverses Contract Termination in Power Purchase Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a power purchase agreement can be terminated for delays when the agreement provides for penalties for such delays. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Power Purchase Agreement Case Name: M.P. Power Management Company Ltd. vs. Renew Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Supreme Court Upholds Penalty but Reverses Contract Termination in Power Purchase Dispute Read Post »

Supreme Court Reverses High Court on Specific Performance: Kalawati vs. Rakesh Kumar (2018)

/ Agreement to Sell, Contract Law, Deepak Gupta, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Judges, Madan B. Lokur, Readiness and Willingness, Specific Performance

Supreme Court Reverses High Court on Specific Performance: Kalawati vs. Rakesh Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement in a suit for specific performance of a contract. CASE TYPE: Civil – Contract Law, Specific Performance Case Name: Kalawati (D) Through LRs. & Ors. vs.

Supreme Court Reverses High Court on Specific Performance: Kalawati vs. Rakesh Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Contract Dispute: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. vs. M/S. Datar Switchgear Limited & Ors. (18 January 2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Ashok Bhushan, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 39, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 53, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 63, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. vs. M/S. Datar Switchgear Limited & Ors. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Arbitral Tribunal’s award was justified in holding Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) liable for breach of contract due to non-supply of location lists, and whether the damages awarded were

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Contract Dispute: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. vs. M/S. Datar Switchgear Limited & Ors. (18 January 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court rules percentage-based advocate fees unethical, quashes proceedings: B. Sunitha vs. State of Telangana (2017)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, Judges, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, Uday Umesh Lalit

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an advocate can claim fees based on a percentage of the decretal amount and whether a cheque issued for such fees constitutes a legally enforceable debt.CASE TYPE: Professional Ethics, Negotiable Instruments Act Case Name: B. Sunitha vs. The State of Telangana & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 5th December, 2017 Can a lawyer demand

Supreme Court rules percentage-based advocate fees unethical, quashes proceedings: B. Sunitha vs. State of Telangana (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court rules against forfeiture of security deposit in auction case: Suresh Kumar Wadhwa vs. State of M.P. (25 October 2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Auction Law, Breach of contract, Forfeiture Clause, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 74, Judges, Public Auction, R.K. Agrawal, Security Deposit, Terms and Conditions

Date of the Judgment: 25 October 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 923 Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Can a government body forfeit a security deposit when the terms of the auction were not fully disclosed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a public auction of land.

Supreme Court rules against forfeiture of security deposit in auction case: Suresh Kumar Wadhwa vs. State of M.P. (25 October 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies maritime claims and vessel ownership in Chrisomar Corporation vs. MJR Steels (2017)

/ Admiralty Law, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 62, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 63, Judges, Maritime Claims, Maritime Lien, R.F. Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of ownership of a vessel for enforcing maritime claims and the effect of settlement agreements on original contracts. CASE TYPE: Admiralty Law Case Name: Chrisomar Corporation vs. MJR Steels Private Limited & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 14 September 2017 Date of the Judgment: 14 September 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 776 Judges: R.F. Nariman,

Supreme Court clarifies maritime claims and vessel ownership in Chrisomar Corporation vs. MJR Steels (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 Denies Damages for Wrongful Termination: Kanchan Udyog Ltd. vs. United Spirits Ltd. (2017)

/ Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 62, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 73, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 8, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a party can claim damages for loss of anticipated profits and costs for plant installation after a contract termination. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Commercial Dispute Case Name: Kanchan Udyog Limited vs. United Spirits Limited [Judgment Date]: June 19, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: June 19, 2017 Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Supreme Court Denies Damages for Wrongful Termination: Kanchan Udyog Ltd. vs. United Spirits Ltd. (2017) Read Post »

Contract Formation: Supreme Court Decides on Proposal and Counter-Proposal in Vedanta Ltd. vs. Emirates Trading Agency LLC (21 April 2017)

/ Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 7, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 73, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi

Can a contract be formed if there is a proposal and a counter-proposal? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a dispute over a supply agreement. This case clarifies the essential elements required for a valid contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Court ultimately ruled that no contract

Contract Formation: Supreme Court Decides on Proposal and Counter-Proposal in Vedanta Ltd. vs. Emirates Trading Agency LLC (21 April 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Demurrage Liability for Port Authorities: Rasiklal Kantilal vs. Board of Trustee (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Bailment, Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 29, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 7, Customs Port, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 148, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 158, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 with Section 48, Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 with Section 59, Port Authority

LEGAL ISSUE: Determining liability for demurrage charges at ports. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Port Trust Case Name: M/S. RASIKLAL KANTILAL & CO. vs. BOARD OF TRUSTEE OF PORT OF BOMBAY & OTHERS Judgment Date: 28 February 2017 Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 147 Judges: J. Chelameswar, J. Abhay Manohar Sapre

Supreme Court Clarifies Demurrage Liability for Port Authorities: Rasiklal Kantilal vs. Board of Trustee (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top