#Government Contracts

The Chhattisgarh HC held that an executing court cannot direct government officers to personally appear or file affidavits for payment of an arbitral award, as such orders exceed jurisdiction under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act read with Order XXI CPC. The ruling shields public officials from personal liability in award execution and limits court overreach.

The court ruled that a contractual forum-selection clause cannot exclude the High Court's Article 226 writ jurisdiction, and that blacklisting a contractor as a 'Poor Performer' requires a show-cause notice specifying the exact grounds and proposed penalty, not merely an automatic consequence of contract termination. The two-year debarment order was set aside for violating natural justice.

Delhi HC rules arbitration clause survives final award for subsequent distinct disputes, appointing arbitrator under Section 11(6) for GST reimbursement claim. Court confines Section 11 inquiry to prima facie existence of arbitration agreement, not dispute merits. Decision protects arbitration rights in long-term contracts where fresh claims arise post-award.

Rajasthan HC dismisses writ petition challenging railway contract rescission: no territorial jurisdiction at Jodhpur, disputed facts require arbitral forum, 45 days to invoke alternative remedy.

Kerala High Court holds that work contracts executed after the GST rollout (1.7.2017) cannot be subjected to both Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) and GST, preventing double taxation. The ruling mandates re-examination of disputed bill calculations for government contractors, ensuring compliance with the single-tax regime under GST.

Allahabad High Court rules that minor, curable defects like incorrect beneficiary names in bank guarantees cannot justify rejecting the lowest tender bid. The Court emphasizes fairness in public procurement, directing authorities to evaluate financial bids and accept corrected documents to prevent arbitrary exclusions.

Karnataka High Court ruled that requiring experience in both entry and parking fee collection under a tender is arbitrary and violates Article 14, though it upheld a three-year experience requirement as a valid policy decision. The judgment underscores that while courts defer to administrative discretion, unreasonable or discriminatory tender conditions will be struck down.

Karnataka High Court rules that bidders can prove supply quantity in tenders using work orders and satisfaction certificates, rejecting rigid metric tonne (MT) requirements. This judgment eases compliance for contractors in government procurement, setting a precedent for flexible qualification criteria under administrative law.

Karnataka High Court ruled that an unreasonably high tender qualification threshold (₹60 crore) violates Article 14 by excluding capable bidders. The state's subsequent reduction to ₹29 crore sets a precedent for proportionality in public procurement, ensuring fair competition and constitutional compliance.

Madhya Pradesh High Court stays blacklisting order for failure to conduct a mandatory second sample test as required by tender conditions. The ruling reinforces that procedural fairness in procurement demands strict compliance with tender clauses, protecting contractors from arbitrary penalties.

Tripura High Court holds that the Food Corporation of India (FCI) must compensate contractors for detention charges when delays exceed the 3-day limit stipulated in tender agreements, even if caused by FCI's storage shortages. The ruling dismisses demurrage claims but reinforces that contractual obligations prevail over operational lapses in public procurement, setting a precedent for contractor protections in government contracts.

Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked to recover admitted contractual dues from the state, even when alternative remedies are available, if the withholding of payment is arbitrary. The ruling reinforces that constitutional remedies override procedural technicalities when fundamental rights are violated.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that promissory estoppel prevents the government from terminating existing leases without valid justification, even amid policy shifts like the transition from ICF to LHB rakes. The judgment reinforces that public authorities cannot disregard legitimate expectations of private parties in contractual agreements, setting a precedent for fairness in government contracts.

Chhattisgarh High Court holds that tender disqualification for incomplete EMD proof is valid if applied uniformly; courts cannot substitute evaluation or intervene for minor technicalities.

Andhra Pradesh High Court directs state to release admitted dues of Rs. 46 lakhs for executed road construction work, holding delay violates constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21.