“Prior to the decision in Taylor v. Caldwell, (1861-73) All ER Rep 24 the law in England was extremely rigid. A contract had to be performed, notwithstanding the fact that it had become impossible of performance, owing to some unforeseen event, after it was made, which was not the fault of either of the parties […]Read more "Section 56 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 II"
My Lord, What is the difference between an Amendment and a Waiver, in context of The Indian Contract Act, 1872? Amendment It is settled law that an amendment to a contract being in the nature of a modification of the terms of the contract must be read in and become a part of the original […]Read more "Section 62 – Amendments and Section 63 – Waivers"
“Recently in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., 2016 (8) SCALE 765 a Two-Judge Bench eloquently exposited… “We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The Constitutional Courts must […]Read more "Tender Law IV"
My Lord, Is the 1997 Amendment to Section 28 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 clarificatory or declaratory of the law, and hence retrospective? No. “What emerges on a reading of the Law Commission Report together with the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Amendment is that the Amendment does not purport to be […]Read more "Section 28 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872"
“Recently, in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) it was held by this Court, relying on a host of decisions that the decision making process of the employer or owner of the project in accepting or rejecting the bid of a tenderer should not be interfered with. Interference is permissible only if the […]Read more "Tender Law III"
The party issuing a tender (employer) ‘has the right to punctiliously and rigidly’ enforce the terms of the tender. Here is a wholesome principle that the Courts have been following for a very long time and which was articulated in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, (1979) 3 SCC 489: ‘where a power is given to […]Read more "Tender Law II"
Section 230 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 categorically makes it clear that an agent is not liable for the acts of a disclosed principal subject to a contract of the contrary. In Marine Contained Services South Pvt. Ltd. v. Go Go Garments, (1998) 3 SCC 247 the SC held that the defence under Section 230 […]Read more "Section 230 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872"