Reimbursement - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Balances Fairness & Flexibility in Govt. Contracts, Upholds Cancellation of LoI in Himachal Case

10Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Balances Fairness & Flexibility in Govt. Contracts, Upholds Cancellation of LoI in Himachal Case

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that a Letter of Intent is a conditional, non-binding precursor to a contract, creating no vested rights until stipulated prerequisites are fulfilled. The Court held that the State's cancellation of such an LoI is valid if based on genuine grounds of non-compliance and public interest, and is not arbitrary per se. Facts Of The Case: The State of Himachal Pradesh initiated a tender process to upgrade its Public Distribution System with biometric and IRIS-enabled ePOS devices. After four rounds of tendering, M/s OASYS Cybermatics Pvt. Ltd. emerged as the sole technically qualified bidder and was issued a Letter of Intent (LoI) in September 2022. The LoI was conditional, requiring successful compatibility testing, live demonstrations, an...

Supreme Court: Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contracts, Upholds IRCTC’s Catering Policy

The Supreme Court held that an arbitral award which contravenes binding government policy circulars—incorporated into the parties' contracts—is patently illegal and in conflict with the public policy of India under Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. An arbitrator cannot rewrite contractual terms that reflect such policy. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from contracts for catering services on premium Indian Railways trains (Rajdhani, Shatabdi, Duronto). The Railway Board initially increased meal tariffs in 2013 but simultaneously introduced a cheaper "combo meal" to replace the second regular meal on long journeys. This combo meal was swiftly discontinued days later, and caterers were directed to serve a second regular meal instead, but were to be reimbu...

Supreme Court Rules Insurance Company Liable for Worker Compensation Alongside Employer

The Supreme Court held that under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, an insurer can be made a party and held jointly and severally liable for compensation if the employer's liability is covered by the insurance policy. The Court clarified that Section 19 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to determine the liability of the insurer, ensuring the workman's remedy is effective and not illusory. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a claim filed by a workman (the second respondent), who was employed as a driver by the appellant, Alok Kumar Ghosh. The workman suffered a disabling injury due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. He filed for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, against both his employer (the appellant) and The New In...