Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Supreme Court Sets Aside Penalties Imposed by Odisha State Government in Extension of Time Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the penalties imposed by the State Government of Odisha in a case involving the extension of time for a road improvement project. The Court ruled that the State Government was not justified in levying penalties on contractors who failed to complete their work within the stipulated time. The judgment, delivered by Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, emphasized that the imposition of penalties while granting an extension of time was illegal and without authority of the law.

Supreme Court stated, "Levy of penalty while granting extension of time is wholly without authority of the law and is illegal." The Court further emphasized that the relevant clause invoked by the State Government did not apply to cases where the contract was extended but rather related to the termination of a contract. Additionally, the Court noted that there was no provision in the contract or the Odisha Public Work Dept. Code (OPWD Code) authorizing the imposition of penalties while granting an extension of time.

The case before the Court involved Civil Appeal No. 4934 of 2022 arising from a writ petition filed by a special class contractor who was awarded a road improvement contract. The contractor failed to complete the work within the specified time frame and applied for an extension, which was granted by the State Government subject to the imposition of a penalty. The High Court had set aside the penalty, a decision that was upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Court also highlighted the importance of providing an opportunity for the contractor to be heard before levying a penalty, stating, "The contractor must be put to notice that extension of time can be granted on imposition of reasonable penalty. However, without putting the contractor to notice, unilaterally, the State is not justified in levying the penalty while granting extension of time."

This landmark judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the imposition of penalties in cases of time extension for contract completion. It ensures that contractors are not unduly burdened with penalties without proper notice and an opportunity to present their case. The decision will have far-reaching implications for similar cases and is expected to promote fairness and equity in contractual relationships between the State Government and contractors.

The Supreme Court's ruling will serve as a precedent and guide future decisions concerning penalties imposed during contract extensions, setting a standard that upholds the principles of natural justice and contract law.

Date of Decision: March 24, 2023

The State of Odisha & Ors. VS Radheshyam Agrawal

Latest Legal News