R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Navyauga Machilipatnam Port Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, which is the 1st respondent herein, in pursuance of its intention to develop an all weather deep water port at Machilipatnam, Krishna District, vide G.O.Ms. No. 2 Infrastructure and Investment (Ports-I) Department, dated 30.01.2008, awarded the contract of developing such a port to a consortium of companies. Pursuant to this award, a Concession Agreement dated 21.04.2008 was executed. The consortium of companies had incorporated a company by the name M/s. Vajra Sea Port Pvt. Ltd. as a special purpose vehicle to execute the Concession agreement. The name of this company was subsequently changed to M/s. Machilipatnam Port Limited and thereafter, to M/s. Navayuga Machilipatnam Port Limited. The said special purpose vehicle is the writ petitioner in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner on 28.08.2009 informed 1st respondent that some of its promoters had exited the project and sought permission for inducting another company called Navayuga Engineering Company Pvt., Ltd. as the lead promoter. This request was accepted by the 1st respondent, which issued G.O.Ms. No. 7 dated 15.04.2010, for such a change. After the induction of the new lead pro
Attorney General of Belize vs. Belize Telecom Ltd. (2009) 1 WLR 1988 (PC)
Aligarh Muslim University and Others vs. Mansoor Ali Khan
ABL International Ltd. and Another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others
Canara Bank and Others vs. Debasis Das and Others
Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat
Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi P. Gaikwad vs. Savjibai Haribai Patel and Others
Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd. vs. West Bromwich Building Society
K.L. Tripathi vs. State Bank of India
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Others
M.O.H. Uduman and Others vs. M.O.H. Aslum
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar
Nabha Power Limited vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Another
Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Satya Jain vs. Anis Ahmed Rushdie
State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma
Trollope and Colls Ltd. vs. North West Metropolitan Regl. Hospital Board
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Manubhai Dharmasinhbhai Gajera
The court affirmed that disputes arising from contractual agreements lacking statutory characteristics are to be resolved through arbitration, and the invocation of performance guarantees is valid wh....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of principles of natural justice in the termination of the agreement and invocation of bank guarantees, leading to the court setting ....
A binding agreement requires absolute and unqualified acceptance; silence alone is insufficient. When a contract provides specific machinery for termination and financial consequences, parties cannot....
Since appropriate remedy is available to proceed ahead against the respondent No.3, i.e. Sterling Group and its promoters, and having efficacious remedy, the reliefs prayed for in the petition may no....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presence of contingent conditions in a Letter of Acceptance can impact the formation of a concluded contract, and the intention of the par....
A concession period extension under a contract requires compliance with specific procedural conditions, and is not automatic despite recommendations from an independent engineer.
it is clear that generally, the Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction to enforce the contractual obligation. It is designed to promote justice. The grant or refusal of the writ is at the di....
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.