Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Several judgments clarify that even if a party later claims ignorance or errors, the binding nature of the concession or judgment remains, unless fraud or undue influence is proven ["State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur VS Atlanta Ltd. , Having Its Registered Office At 101, Shri Amba Shanti Chamber, Mumbai- Andheri (East) Mumbai - Rajasthan"] ["RASHMIRANJAN JENA Vs STATE OF ODISHA - Orissa"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["National Highways Authority of India VS GVK Jaipur Expressway Private Limited - Delhi"]- ["Kisto Bouri, s/o Late Kanahai Bouri VS Chief Manager (Mining) Project Officer, Govindpur Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through Sri Upendra Kumar Singh, son of Sri Gauri Shankar Singh - Jharkhand"]- ["TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD vs SANPREET CASTINGS (P)LTD. - Madras"]- ["Oma Ram S/o Shri Mukna Ram VS Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited - Rajasthan"]- ["RASHMIRANJAN JENA Vs STATE OF ODISHA - Orissa"]- ["RASHMIRANJAN JENA Vs STATE OF ODISHA - Orissa"]- ["Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University VS Chegudi Babu S/o Anukulu - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["RASHMIRANJAN JENA Vs STATE OF ODISHA - Orissa"]- ["State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur VS Atlanta Ltd. , Having Its Registered Office At 101, Shri Amba Shanti Chamber, Mumbai- Andheri (East) Mumbai - Rajasthan"]- ["Binani Zinc Ltd. Binanipuram v. State of Kerala and Others - Kerala"]- ["Ascent Education Trust, Kanpur Thru. Chairman Mr. Gurusharan Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. - Allahabad"]- ["HARENDRRAKUMAR NATWARSINHJI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"]- ["Real Food Products (P. ) Ltd. VS Income-tax Appellate Tribunal - Andhra Pradesh"]
In the complex world of litigation and contractual agreements, parties often make concessions—admissions or agreements that shape the outcome of cases. But what happens when a concession case squarely covered cannot be challenged? This question arises frequently in disputes involving court orders, sanctioned schemes, and statutory benefits. Understanding the binding nature of such concessions is crucial for lawyers, businesses, and individuals navigating legal proceedings.
This post delves into the legal principles governing when concessions become unchallengeable, drawing from key judicial findings. We'll explore the main rules, exceptions, and practical recommendations, while integrating insights from related cases. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for your situation.
Concessions that are clearly and specifically recorded in court orders or sanctioned schemes, and deemed accepted by relevant authorities, are generally legally valid and unchallengeable. They acquire a binding status unless challenged on grounds like fraud, mala fides, or violation of mandatory procedural requirements—provided they stay within applicable statutes and formalities. THANKAMMAL VS VELU ACHARAI - 1980 0 Supreme(Ker) 170
This principle ensures finality in litigation, promoting efficiency and justice. Courts emphasize clear recording to avoid ambiguity: concessions must be explicitly noted, signed, and unambiguous. Failure to do so may lead to orders being set aside. THANKAMMAL VS VELU ACHARAI - 1980 0 Supreme(Ker) 170
In court proceedings, concessions by parties or counsel must be formally recorded. Courts require them to be explicitly brought on record, signed, and expressed in unambiguous terms to be enforceable. THANKAMMAL VS VELU ACHARAI - 1980 0 Supreme(Ker) 170 Without this, challenges may succeed, and orders could be remitted for correction.
A related nuance appears in review petitions under Civil Procedure Code Order 47 Rule 1. If an order relies on a counsel's concession that's later disputed via affidavit (with no rebuttal), and the case wasn't for final hearing, it may constitute grounds for review. The court noted: either no such concession was made... or such a concession was recorded under some misconception. Mohammed Shafi VS Abdul Wahid - 2011 Supreme(MP) 727
This highlights that concessions aren't automatically binding if made without client instructions or under misunderstanding—reinforcing the need for explicit documentation.
Under statutes like the Sick Industrial Companies Act, concessions in sanctioned schemes deemed accepted by authorities are unchallengeable unless procedural irregularities exist. For instance, the Railways were bound by Clause 11.6 of the scheme because it was deemed to have consented to it. Union of India VS Cimmco Ltd. - 2014 0 Supreme(Del) 647
In infrastructure projects, concession agreements (e.g., DBFOT for highways) underscore similar themes. Breaches of warranties or failure to provide Right of Way can lead to damages, but properly structured concessions hold firm. The tribunal held: the present case was a breach of warranty under Clause 7.2... Clause 4.2 shall not be applicable. National Highways Authority Of India VS Pune Sholapur Road Development Company Limited - 2019 Supreme(Del) 903
Even in arbitration appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, courts uphold tribunal findings on force majeure in concessions, refusing interference if plausible. National Highways Authority of India VS Jas Toll Road Company Limited - 2023 Supreme(Del) 5547
Decisions in prior suits, like maintenance grants under the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act, operate as res judicata and bind parties. A 1920 grant obeying a decree was valid, while an unsanctioned one was still-born. BINDESWARI CHARAN SINGH VS BAGESHWARI CHARAN SINGH, - 1935 0 Supreme(SC) 62
Compassionate appointments, treated as concessions rather than rights, exemplify this: It is a concession, and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Courts won't direct appointments ignoring rules. Vice Chairman, Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada, Krishna District VS V. Padma - 2015 Supreme(AP) 92
Government exemptions, such as under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, are benefits, not enforceable rights. Authorities can withdraw them in public interest without judicial interference, absent mala fides or arbitrariness. State of Haryana VS Mahabir Vegetable Oils Pvt. Ltd. - 2011 2 Supreme 135
In toll concessions, like NOIDA's user fee delegation, courts may sever offending clauses if arbitrary, but upheld performance prevents full invalidation. FEDERATION OF NOIDA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY LTD. - 2016 Supreme(All) 1285
Revenue cases also bind parties to concessions: Concession made on behalf of the Revenue before the Tribunal cannot be allowed to be retracted. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I VS ITC Ltd. - 2006 Supreme(SC) 1441
While robust, concessions aren't absolute:- Fraud, misrepresentation, or mala fides allow challenges. National Highways Authority Of India VS Pune Sholapur Road Development Company Limited - 2019 Supreme(Del) 903- Lack of proper recording or procedural violations invalidate them. THANKAMMAL VS VELU ACHARAI - 1980 0 Supreme(Ker) 170- Policy decisions in public interest are judicially restrained unless capricious. State of Haryana VS Mahabir Vegetable Oils Pvt. Ltd. - 2011 2 Supreme 135- Issues squarely covered by precedents often can't be re-litigated, as in writ petitions following Division Bench decisions. JANAMJIT KAUR vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
For example, multiple Odisha cases dismissed challenges because the issue involved... is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. RASHMIRANJAN JENA Vs STATE OF ODISHAMINAKSHI PRADHAN Vs STATE OF ODISHA
To protect concessions:- Explicitly record all in formal documents or orders.- Ensure procedural compliance and documentation.- Anticipate withdrawals in policy contexts; challenge only on solid grounds like fraud.
In concession agreements, verify warranties and force majeure clauses early to avoid breaches. National Highways Authority Of India VS Pune Sholapur Road Development Company Limited - 2019 Supreme(Del) 903
Concessions squarely covered in court orders or schemes generally cannot be challenged, fostering legal certainty. However, exceptions for fraud or procedural lapses provide balance. Cases like those under sanctioned schemes Union of India VS Cimmco Ltd. - 2014 0 Supreme(Del) 647 and recorded admissions THANKAMMAL VS VELU ACHARAI - 1980 0 Supreme(Ker) 170 illustrate this enduring principle.
Key Takeaways:- Prioritize clarity and formality in concessions.- Courts uphold binding status but scrutinize irregularities.- In arbitration or policy matters, plausibility and public interest guide outcomes.
Stay informed on evolving precedents, and always seek professional advice tailored to your case.
References:1. THANKAMMAL VS VELU ACHARAI - 1980 0 Supreme(Ker) 170 - Clear recording in court orders.2. Union of India VS Cimmco Ltd. - 2014 0 Supreme(Del) 647 - Binding sanctioned schemes.3. BINDESWARI CHARAN SINGH VS BAGESHWARI CHARAN SINGH, - 1935 0 Supreme(SC) 62 - Res judicata in grants.4. State of Haryana VS Mahabir Vegetable Oils Pvt. Ltd. - 2011 2 Supreme 135 - Policy concessions.
#LegalConcessions, #UnchallengeableCases, #CourtBindings
The Respondent-herein challenged the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, in the underlying proceedings before the Learned Single Judge. The Ld. ... For applying the law enshrined by the Apex Court to the facts of the present case, first it is necessary to reproduce the clauses of the Concession Agreement. ... Therefore, the said work cannot be said to be outside the scope of work of the project as per the Concession Agreement as is the stand of the Respondent - NHAI. ... However, the....
Consent given in a court that a controversy is covered by a judgment which has no applicability whatsoever and pertains to a different field, cannot estop the party from raising the point that the same was erroneously cited. 18. In Union of India v. ... (L) No. 7058 of 2019 did not hold the Vakalatnama and therefore concession of the learned counsel cannot bind the workmen. Consequently, the order dated 02.12.2021 passed in W.P. (L) No. 7058 of 2019 and W.P. ... We have already stated the legal position with regard to le....
When confronted the learned counsel for the appellants with a question as to whether the instant case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Status Spinning Mills Limited (supra), he had no answer. ... By filing the instant writ petition, the respondent/writ petitioner has challenged the rejection of the concession tariff to it. ... It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner's unit had started functioning prior to 15.02.1997 and therefore, th....
As such, the same cannot be said to be an expected event thereby rendering it beyond the scope of a Force Majeure Event as defined under the Concession Agreement. ... b) Upon merits, it is an admitted position that Transporter's Strike is covered under the definition of a Force Majeure Event under the terms of the Concession Agreement. ... The said Award was challenged by the appellant in respect of all the claims allowed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal by filing petition under Section 34 of the Arbit....
It is submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Suresh Kumar (supra). ... I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. ... In the advertisement, no posts were reserved for the physically challenged persons. ... In view of the factual matrix and the decision taken by the competent authority having regard to the nature and type of duties attached to the post of ‘Technical Helper’, the action of the responde....
Even otherwise, on merit the controversy involved in the present case is covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Brig.D.S. Grewal's case (supra). ... Pandove's case (supra) was passed on concession on the basis of which Ram Phal Singh's case (supra) was allowed, therefore, the ratio laid down in M.P. ... document Chandigarh LPA No.20 of 2014 -4- that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the learned Sin....
Since the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of this Court in the case of Narayan Chandra Udgata (supra), this writ petition is also allowed in terms ... Petitioner has also challenged Clause- 6 of the Order No.465 dated 2nd January, 2020 under Annexure- 3 issued by the Government of Odisha in Revenue and Disaster Management Department whereby it has been ... Rules, 2016 read with Clause-3 of FORM-M and Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the Odisha Miscellaneous Certificat....
Since the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of this Court in the case of Narayan Chandra Udgata (supra), this writ petition is also allowed in terms ... Petitioner has also challenged Clause- 6 of the Order No.465 dated 2nd January, 2020 under Annexure- 4 issued by the Government of Odisha in Revenue and Disaster Management Department whereby it has been ... Rules, 2016 read with Clause-3 of FORM-M and Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the Odisha Miscellaneous Certificat....
The writ petition came to be disposed of by the impugned judgment and order primarily on the concession of the learned Government Pleader, Revenue, agreeing with the stand taken by learned counsel for the respondents that the issue involved was squarely covered by order of the Court in W.P.No.1700 of ... Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that such concession was not proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case for the reason that the respondent had moved the Court against her pro....
Since the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of this Court in the case of Narayan Chandra Udgata (supra), this writ petition is also allowed in terms ... Petitioner has also challenged Clause- 6 of the Order No.465 dated 2nd January, 2020 under Annexure- 3 issued by the Government of Odisha in Revenue and Disaster Management Department whereby it has been ... Rules, 2016 read with Clause-3 of FORM-M and Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the Odisha Miscellaneous Certificat....
A reading of the above would clearly show that the petitioner was in fundamental breach of the Agreement even in respect to its obligation under Clause 10.3.1 and 10.3.2 of the Concession Agreement. The Tribunal therefore, found that in the present case the damages cannot be confined only under Clause 10.3.4 of the Concession Agreement.
During oral submissions, Sri C.B. Yadav learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the relief sought in the amended writ petition is for quashing of the Concession Agreement which was arrived in the year 1997 incorporated by filing an amendment application on 12.2.2013. The Concession Agreement cannot be challenged after 16 years.
It is a concession, and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. (SBI v. Anju Jain (2008) 8 SCC 475); SAIL (supra); Union of India v. Shashank Goswami (2012) 11 SCC 307); State of U.P. v. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi (2013) 11 SCC 178). Appointment on compassionate grounds, offered to a dependant of a deceased employee, is an exception to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment to the posts which have fallen vacant.
Counsel for the respondent has raised an objection that the concession made by the petitioner’s counsel was a concession on question of fact, therefore, it is binding. Such a submission, cannot be accepted since the aforesaid analysis indicates that either no such concession was made by counsel for petitioner or such a concession was recorded under some misconception and that the said concession was not on the basis of the instructions of the client and it was improbable to make such a concession considering the circumstances of the case.
We cannot permit the Revenue to take the respondent by surprise. In the absence of any challenge to this effect in the appeal, we decline the permission to the counsel for the appellant to raise this point before us for the first time. Concession made on behalf of the Revenue before the Tribunal cannot be allowed to be retracted before us especially when the same is not challenged in the appeal. The permission to raise this point is accordingly declined.
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
