Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

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