Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Indian Contract Act

8 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

THE VICE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LTD.& ANR.versusSHISHIR REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. ETC

2021 INSC 79729 November 2021Dismissed

The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (CIDCO) invited a tender for leasing land for hotel development and allotted the plot to the highest bidder, Metropolis Hotels, which later changed the land use and subdivided the plot, assigning part to Shishir Realty. Complaints of irregularities led to a

MAHARASHTRA CHESS ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 82329 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Maharashtra Chess Association, a society affiliated to the All India Chess Federation, was disaffiliated by the Federation and filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court under Article 226 challenging the action. The Federation invoked Clause 21 of its Constitution and Bye‑laws, which stipulated that any suit ag

M/S. SUMITOMO HEAVY INDUSTRIES LIMITEDversusOIL & NATURAL GAS COMPANY

2010 INSC 44428 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sumitomo Heavy Industries, entered into a turn‑key offshore platform contract with the respondent, ONGC, which contained a clause (17.3) obligating the respondent to compensate the contractor for any necessary and reasonable extra cost caused by a change in Indian law after the bid closing date. After th

ESSAR STEEL LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2016 INSC 32519 April 2016Dismissed

Essar Steel Ltd. and other off‑takers had long‑term contracts to purchase regasified LNG (RLNG) at a fixed price. In 2007 the Union Government issued a policy directive to pool RLNG prices and apply a uniform, non‑discriminatory price to all long‑term contracts, which raised the price for the appellants. The appellants

K. KUMARA GUPTAversusSRI MARKENDAYA AND SRI OMKARESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE & ORS

2022 INSC 20718 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, K. Kumara Gupta, purchased temple land in a public auction on 24‑06‑1998, was declared the highest bidder, and the sale was confirmed and the deed executed. Over two decades later, third parties who had not participated in the auction claimed they could have paid a higher price and sought a re‑auction. T

M/S. SSPPL AND M/S. AIL WASversusSALMA DAM JOINT VENTURE & ANR.

2019 INSC 124914 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

WAPCOS Ltd entered into a contract with Salma Dam Joint Venture (SDJV), a 95%-5% joint venture of SSPPL and AIL, for the reconstruction of the Salma Dam. After the original contract’s arbitration clause, the parties executed an Amendment of Agreement (AoA) on 9 June 2015, which expressly stated that no further claims w

RAMESHWAR & OTHERSversusSTATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

2018 INSC 22712 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Haryana Government issued a notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire land for an industrial township, after which many landholders sold their land to private builders at inflated prices. The State later dropped the acquisition on 24 August 2007 and again on 29 January 2010, allegedly to benefit

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S PUNA HINDA

2021 INSC 4486 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India and others entered into a road‑construction contract with M/s Puna Hinda, which contained an arbitration clause for dispute resolution. After completing the work, the contractor submitted a final bill of Rs 23.68 crore, claiming payment for certain bills that the government alleged were already settl

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search