SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(P&H) 1243

VIJENDER JAIN, RAJIVE BHALLA, SURYA KANT
Subhash Chand – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


Judgment

SURYA KANT, J.

1. The following questions of law have been referred by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 7th February, 1992 for adjudication by a larger Bench :-

"(1) Is the State to be treated differently than an individual qua its rights to enter into contract in exercise of its Executive powers ?

(2) Are the provisions of the Indian Contract Act applicable to the State as in case of an individual in addition to the additional safeguards provided by Article 299 of the Constitution of India, to protect the interest of the State particularly in view of the fact that the auction, subject to confirmation of the higher authorities is nothing more than inviting offers and it is only on confirmation or acceptance of auction that an enforceable agreement comes into being ?

(3) Does a person who made only an offer without it being accepted acquire any enforceable right under the law ?

(4) Does the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the non-acceptance of the bid which was subject to the confirmation, has any locus standi to maintain the writ petition ?

(5) Is the State in exercise of its executive powers bound to pass a reasoned speaki
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top