state instrumentality. - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Quashes Decree Against Odisha Corp, Clarifies Law on Interest for Pre-1992 Transactions

5Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Decree Against Odisha Corp, Clarifies Law on Interest for Pre-1992 Transactions

The Supreme Court held that the suit against the State Financial Corporation was not maintainable due to non-compliance with the mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC. The decree was declared a nullity as it erroneously applied the Interest on Delayed Payments Act, 1993, to a pre-enactment transaction and fastened liability without privity of contract. Execution proceedings were quashed. Facts Of The Case: In 1985, Respondent No. 1, M/s. Vigyan Chemical Industries, supplied raw materials to Respondent No. 2, an industrial unit. Due to a loan default, the Appellant, Odisha State Financial Corporation (OSFC), took possession of Respondent No. 2's unit in 1987 under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. In 1988, Respondent No. 1 filed a recovery suit for its unpaid dues. OSFC was impl...

Clarifying Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Reaffirms Exclusive Power of MP Arbitration Tribunal for Public Works

The Supreme Court upheld the exclusive jurisdiction of the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal over disputes arising from state works contracts, as per the MP Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. It ruled that a private arbitration clause in a concession agreement cannot override this statutory mandate, rendering such arbitration non-est in law. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a Concession Agreement dated 05.01.2012 between Umri Pooph Pratappur Tollways Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) and the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (Respondent) for the development of a state highway on a BOT (Toll + Annuity) basis. Following alleged breaches and delays attributed to the Respondent, the Appellant first initiated proceedings in 2018 before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, a s...

Supreme Court Split Verdict: When Can Schools Be Held Accountable Under Article 226?

The Supreme Court examined whether Air Force Schools qualify as a "State" under Article 12 or an "authority" amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The majority held that despite partial government control and funding, the schools lacked pervasive state dominance, relegating disputes to private contract law. However, the dissenting opinion emphasized their public function, deep administrative control by the Indian Air Force, and indirect public funding, making them subject to writ jurisdiction. The split verdict clarifies the distinction between regulatory control and pervasive state authority in educational institutions Facts Of The Case: The case involved two civil appeals before the Supreme Court concerning the Air Force School, Bamrauli, Allahabad. In Ci...