Prudeta
Prudeta
2026 INSC 342
📌 Paras 4-13
The Appellant, MSEDCL, a state-owned electricity distribution company, floated a tender for civil and interior work. The Respondent, a partnership firm, participated and was issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) for a value of ₹17,76,19,699. The Respondent submitted bank guarantees as security. Despite repeated requests, MSEDCL did not issue a Work Order. The Respondent terminated the contract and sought arbitration. MSEDCL later cancelled the tender and refunded the Respondent's EMD and security deposit. The Respondent invoked arbitration again, and MSEDCL contended that no concluded contract or arbitration agreement existed. The Respondent then filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, leading to the High
The bench further analyzed the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions and discussed the interpretation of Articles 14 and 21 in light of recent precedents...
Citing the ratio in prior decisions, the court held that the legislative intent was to ensure...
No credit card required · 14-day free trial