Central Coalfields Limited & Anr V. SLL-SML(Joint venture Consortium) & Ors(2016): The party issuing the tender has the right to punctiliously and rigidly enforce the terms of the tender.

Case Central Coalfields Limited and Another V. SLL-SML(Joint venture Consortium) and Others.
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India
BenchJustice Madan B. Lokur, Justice R.K. Agarwal
Author of the JudgementJustice Madan B Lokur.
Decided onAugust 17, 2016.
AbstractIn the present case, the appellants invited tenders and prescribed that the bank guarantee should be given in the specified format. The respondent SLL-SML had not adhered to the format specified and thus their bid was rejected. It was contended by the respondent SLL-SML that the format was ambiguous and vague. The division bench of the High Court allowed the appeal, which was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court of India. According to the Supreme Court if the employer specifies a certain format then the submission should be made in that format only and no other format should be adhered to.
Author of briefAditya Gor
KeywordsBank Guarantee, Professional Responsibility, Tender, Joint Venture, Digital Signature Certificate.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana(1979): Non-compliance with section 3(6) of the Essential Commodities Act, would not render the order or notification void.

Case Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana (AIR 1979 SC 1149)
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India.
BenchJustice Jaswant Singh, Justice Syed Murtaza Fazalali and Justice P. S. Kailasam.
Author of the judgmentJustice Jaswant Singh
Date of the Judgment4/10/1978
Advocates for the appellantsB. Sen, A.K. Sen, J.C. Bhatt, F.S. Nariman, A.B. Diwan, I.N. Shroff and H.S. Parihar.
Advocates for the respondentD. Mukherjee, E.C. Agarwala and R.N. Sachthey.
Relevant Act/SectionsEssential Commodities Act 1955 – Section 3(6).
Author of the BriefHarshil Patel, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KeywordsIron and Steel Control Order, Indian Penal Code, Maximum selling price, Constitution of India, Essential Commodities Act, Parliament,

(more…)

Continue Reading

Shivashakti Sugars Limited v. Shree Renuka Sugar Limited & Ors(2017): It is the duty of the court to have economic analysis of its decision.

CaseShivashakti Sugars Limited v. Shree Renuka Sugar Limited & Ors.
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India
BenchA.K.Sikri, A.M.Sapre, JJ.
Author of the judgementA.K.Sikri, J.
Decided on09.05.2017
AbstractThis is a landmark judgment in which the Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of the Court to consider the economic impact and analysis of its decisions before deciding any case. However, such economic analysis cannot supersede the statutory provisions of law.
Author of the briefDarshan Patankar, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KeywordsSugarcane (Control) Amendment Act, Sugar Mills,

(more…)

Continue Reading

Nur Ali Dubash v Abdul Ali (1892): Calcutta High Court on difference between partial and total restrain of trade.

CASE NAME Nur Ali Dubash v Abdul Ali, (1892) ILR 19 Cal 765
COURT Before the High Court of Calcutta
DECIDED ON March 4, 1892
BENCH Justice Pigot  and Justice Macpherson
AUTHOR OF THE JUDGEMENT Justice PA Macpherson
ABSTRACT

In the present case, there was an agreement between parties with regards to restraint of trade. Restraint of trade is dealt under section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Restraint of any lawful profession or business or trade of any kind is considered as void under law. However, with changing times, the courts have considered partial restraint of trade to be valid under the law if found to be reasonable.

According to the facts of the present case, the court found that the partial restraint observed in the agreement was not unreasonable and thus void.

AUTHOR OF THE BRIEF Aarsh Chokshi, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KEYWORDS Section 27-Indian Contract Act, Partial Restraint of trade, Total Restraint of trade.

(more…)

Continue Reading
  • 1
  • 2
Close Menu