Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

Supreme Court Upholds IRCON's Right to Rescind Contract and Forfeit Security Deposits: Interest Rate Modified

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the right of Indian Railway Construction Company Limited (IRCON) to rescind a contract and forfeit security deposits, while modifying the interest rate awarded on an advance for hypothecation of equipment. In its judgment, the apex court stated, "The IRCON was justified in rescinding the contract due to abandonment of work by NBCC and, therefore, the security deposits were liable to be forfeited."

The court further emphasized that the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal, which concluded that the IRCON was not justified in invoking a specific clause but was justified under another clause, had attained finality. The court expressed disagreement with the High Court's decision to set aside the rejection of NBCC's claims for refund of security deposits, thus restoring the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of interest on the advance provided for hypothecation of equipment. While the High Court had set aside the interest awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal on the ground of absence of a specific contractual provision, the Supreme Court cited Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and emphasized that unless specifically barred, the arbitrator has the power to award interest.

 The court stated, "The interest awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal on advance for hypothecation of equipment should not have been set aside." However, considering the circumstances, the court modified the interest rate from 18% to 12% as a reasonable rate.

The Supreme Court's decision, rendered by Justices M. R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, sets a significant precedent in affirming the right of a party to rescind a contract and forfeit security deposits in cases of abandonment of work.

Date of Decision: March 17, 2023

Indian Railway Construction Company Limited vs M/s National Buildings  

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/17-Mar-2023-Indian-Railway-Vs-Construction.pdf"]

Latest Legal News