Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees 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 Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

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