INDRAJIT MAHANTY, S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Sterling & Wilson Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges contract termination and blacklisting (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. respondents assert petitioner failed contractual obligations (Para 6 , 12) |
| 3. petitioner argues for violation of natural justice during blacklisting (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court’s analysis of need for fair process in blacklisting (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. court affirms termination of contract based on petitioner's inaction (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 6. court quashes blacklisting order and disposes petition (Para 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - By filing this writ petition, the petitioner who is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 has challenged:
(i) The notice dated 18.06.2021 (Annexure-12) issued by the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL for short) whereby the contract awarded to the petitioner by Notification of Award (NOA) dated 11.01.2021 (Annexure-5) was terminated and the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD for short) submitted by the petitioner in the shape of bank guarantee of an amount of Rs.2,73,83,153/- (Rupees two crores seventy three lakhs eighty three thousand one hundred fifty three only) was forfeited by TSECL.
A N D
(ii) Th
B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. [(2006) 11 SCC 548]
Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B. [(1975) 1 SCC 70]
Gorkha Security Services v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Joseph Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer (PWD) [(1978) 3 SCC 36]
Kulja Industries Limited v. Chief General Manager
Patel Engg. Ltd v. Union of India [(2012) 11 SCC 257: (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 445]
S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan & Ors. reported in (1980) 4 SCC 379
Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2021) 1 SCC 804
Blacklisting a contractor without a fair hearing violates principles of natural justice, rendering such actions invalid, while the termination of the contract for non-compliance with security require....
The Petitioner's suppression of a material fact and approach to the Court with unclean hands led to the dismissal of the Petition.
The requirement for a fair hearing and a specific show cause notice before imposing the severe civil consequence of blacklisting, and the need for the authority to determine the period of punishment ....
Tender clauses permit EMD forfeiture and contract cancellation without notice for failing performance security; debarment requires specific prior show cause notice per natural justice principles due ....
Tender bid valid 180 days from submission; post-expiry forfeiture of EMD and debarment invalid without extension. Debarment requires prior show cause notice per natural justice principles.
Termination and blacklisting of a contractor based on poor performance is justified, provided due process is followed in accordance with statutory provisions.
Point of Law : Tender - Blacklisting - Order of blacklisting has an effect of depriving a person of equality of opportunity in the matter of public contract.
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.