Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Sets Aside Mining Tender: “Previous Year” Means Year Before Bid

21Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Sets Aside Mining Tender: “Previous Year” Means Year Before Bid

The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial review in tender matters ensures fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14. It held that misinterpretation of a tender condition, which wrongly excludes the highest bidder and deprives the state of revenue, vitiates the decision-making process. The court underscored the state's duty to maximize public value in natural resource auctions. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a public auction for a five-year sand quarry lease in Odisha. The appellant, M/s Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd., was the highest bidder but its bid was rejected by the Tender Committee for allegedly failing to comply with Rule 27(4)(iv) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016. The rule required submission of an Income Tax Return for the "previous Financial Year...

Specific Performance Suit Fails: Supreme Court Explains Why Buyer Must Vacate Despite Long Possession

The Supreme Court affirmed the executability of a warrant of possession, ruling that a party who receives substantial monetary compensation in lieu of specific performance cannot retain possession of the property. The Court held that equity prevents unjust enrichment and that execution proceedings exist to enforce judgments, not to facilitate windfalls for unscrupulous litigants. Facts Of The Case: On 12.06.1989, the defendants agreed to sell a property to the plaintiff for ₹14,50,000, with ₹25,000 paid as earnest money. Possession of the vacant ground floor was handed over to the plaintiff. In 1990, the plaintiff first filed and withdrew a suit for permanent injunction. Subsequently, in June 1990, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed by the Trial Court ...

Homebuyer Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies When a Real Estate Investment Becomes “Speculative”

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the distinction between genuine homebuyers and speculative investors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It holds that allottees with agreements structured for assured returns or buy-back clauses, without a genuine intent to possess the property, are speculative investors. Such investors are barred from initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of the IBC, as the Code is not a recovery mechanism for speculative investments. Facts Of The Case: This case consolidates four civil appeals concerning the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against real estate developers by individual allottees. The primary appellant, Mansi Brar Fernandes, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Gay...