SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
OASYS Cybernatics Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SURYA KANT, CJI.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal, emanating from a dispute concerning government tenders, brings into sharp focus the delicate balance between considerations of public interest and the constitutional prohibition on arbitrariness in State action.
3. To briefly explicate, the State of Himachal Pradesh (Appellant-State) is in appeal against a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla (High Court) dated 30.05.2024 (Impugned Judgment), whereby the cancellation of a Letter of Intent (LoI) issued to M/s OASYS Cybernetics Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent-company) in connection with a tender for the supply, installation, and maintenance of electronic Point-of-Sale (ePOS) devices for use in the Appellant-State’s Fair Price Shops, has been set aside with consequential restoration of contractual obligations.
A. FACTS
4. Prior to proceeding with charting out the competing submissions and the questions of law that arise for determination, it is necessary to first demarcate the relevant facts in some detail, as they form the quintessential setting against which the present controversy must be considered.
5. The dispute essentially emanates from the
Tata Cellular vs. Union of India
Dresser Rand S.A. vs. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd. (2006) 1 SCC 751 [Para 13]
Level 9 Biz Pvt. Ltd. vs. HP Housing & Urban Development Authority
Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa
Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour vs. Chief Executive Officer
Tata Cellular vs. Union of India
M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. vs. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.