Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Supreme Court Sets Aside Debarment and Penalty Orders Against Appellant in a Contract Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, April 18, 2023 - The Supreme Court of India, in a recent decision, set aside the debarment and penalty orders issued against the appellant by the High Court, in relation to a contract dispute over the supply of transformers. The Court held that the imposition of penalty could not be approved, and the debarment order was issued without due regard to the undeniable factual situation.

The dispute arose from the appellant's alleged failure to fulfill the supply of transformers as per the contract terms, which led to the respondents issuing debarment and penalty orders against the appellant. In response, the appellant approached the High Court, which disposed of the writ petition by maintaining the order of blacklisting and debarment, only modifying the period of debarment to start from an earlier date. The appellant then filed a review petition in the High Court, which was summarily rejected. Subsequently, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Upon examining the case, the Supreme Court identified two major factors that made the imposition of penalty unapproved: the lack of specific notice regarding the proposed imposition of penalty and the maximum penalty imposed without specifying the reasons for such a decision. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 17.08.2020 due to these factors.

The Supreme Court also found shortcomings in the order debarring the appellant for a period of 3 years. It noted that the appellant had made substantial supplies against the purchase orders and that the respondents had deferred the supply without giving further instructions to resume supplies. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 30.07.2020 debarring the appellant.

The High Court had the opportunity to correct the errors in its order but chose to dismiss the review petition without considering the relevant factors. As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders dated 23.04.2021 and 13.12.2021 and allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant. The orders dated 30.07.2020 and 17.08.2020 were quashed and set aside.

The Supreme Court annulled the debarment for all practical purposes and ordered that the order dated 30.07.2020 shall not operate against the appellant's rights and interests in any future tender process. The penalty imposed by the order dated 17.08.2020 was set aside, and if any amount had been recovered, it should be refunded to the appellant within a month with a 9% per annum interest rate from the date of recovery until the date of repayment. The parties were to bear their own costs.

This decision by the Supreme Court reiterates the importance of natural justice and adherence to the terms of a contract while examining disputes arising from alleged breaches.

ISOLATORS AND ISOLATORS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MRS. SANDHYA MISHRA                                                     

VS

MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. & ANR.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/18-Apr-2023-ISOLATORS-AND-ISOLATORS-vs-VIDUT.pdf"]

Latest Legal News