Back
P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN
P. V. Sadanandan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Its Secretary To Government, Department Of Public Works – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
There are a catena of decisions of this Court and Apex Court about the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere in contractual matters. The normal rule is that the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in contractual matters is very limited. But, the parties to the contract are approaching this court in almost all contractual matters contending that their case will come within the sphere of this limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, now the constitutional courts are forced to consider each and every contractual matter that comes before it and determine whether the same will come within the four corners of the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to warrant the Court’s interference.
2. The main contention of the petitioners in these batch of cases is regarding the applicability of certain office memorandums issued by the Government of India by which the payment of the performance guarantee and additional performance guarantee to be paid by contractors as per the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) were relaxed due to the Covid 19 pan
Rule 232 deals with general principles for award of grants-in-aid for centrally sponsored schemes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefits conferred by Government Orders extending relaxation in performance security and related guarantees were intended for contractors ....
Additional performance guarantee unenforceable in item-wise tenders without published item-wise estimated rates.
The court recognized the legality of reducing the performance guarantee from 5% to 3% in accordance with government orders due to pandemic relief initiatives.
BHEL, as a government company, is bound by the Office Memorandum dated 12.11.2020 to reduce Contract Performance Guarantees for existing contracts, regardless of restrictive conditions imposed.
Point of law: Stated simply, 'unjust enrichment' means retention of a benefit by a person that is unjust or inequitable. 'Unjust enrichment' occurs when a person retains money or benefits which in ju....
The court emphasized strict interpretation of exemption conditions, confirming that exemptions apply only to tenders prior to stipulated deadlines.
The court emphasized the importance of honoring contractual agreements and the need for parties to adhere to the terms of the contract. It also highlighted the significance of approaching the compete....
The court confirmed that the performance guarantee should not exceed 3%, aligning with previous judgments.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
