Lease Deed - 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...

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Proprietor and His Business Are Not Separate Legal Entities

The Supreme Court held that a proprietorship concern is not a juristic person and a suit filed against the proprietor personally is maintainable. Order XXX Rule 10 of the CPC is merely enabling and does not bar a suit against the proprietor, who remains the real party in interest for all transactions conducted in the trade name. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, owners of a property, leased it to Aditya Motors, a sole proprietorship concern of respondent Pilla Durga Prasad, via a registered lease deed. After the lease expired, the lessee failed to vacate, prompting the appellants to file an eviction suit. The original suit named the lessee as defendant no.1 (Aditya Motors), along with the sub-lessee and its directors. During the proceedings, the appellants amended the plaint, substituti...

Public Trust Doctrine Violated in Hasty Land Allotment :Supreme Court Upholds Land Allotment Cancellation

The Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of land allotment by UPSIDC due to the allottee's persistent payment defaults and failure to fulfill contractual obligations. The Court found that UPSIDC had followed the prescribed procedure for cancellation, including issuing multiple notices. The Court also annulled a subsequent allotment of the same land, emphasizing the need for transparent and non-discriminatory allocation of public resources in line with the Public Trust Doctrine Facts Of The Case: Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust (KNMT) applied in March 2003 to purchase 125 acres of land in Uttar Pradesh for floriculture. On September 18, 2003, Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) allotted the land, conditional upon certain terms, including a payment schedule. KNMT de...