Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

M/S. NOVA STEEL (INDIA) LTD. versus M.C.D. AND ORS.

Decided
6 January 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1995] 1 S.C.R. 107 · 1995 INSC 11
Also cited as
  • (1995) 3 SCC 334 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This special leave petition arises from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated September 28, 1994. Admittedly, the petitioner had negotiated and agreed to supply 3000 MT of Tor Steel to the respondents. Pursuant thereto, the respondents wrote a letter on February 15, 1993 conveying their acceptance and requested the petitioner to enter into the contract and also to start the supply of the steel immediately. Admittedly, the petitioner had not executed the contract. Thereafter, on March 19, 1993, the notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be black-listed or debarred from having any dealings with the respondents. Even after the receipt of the notice, the petitioner had not giyen any reply. Consequently, on April 19, 1993, the respm{dents had debarred the petitioner to enter into the contract for a period of two years. The petitioner challenged the same in CWP No. 577/93. As stated earlier, the High Court refused to interfere with the order .

p. 108, margin A

. It is thus clear that the petitioner having negotiated with the respondent to supply the iron and received the acceptance in that behalf, he was reqUired to enter into the contract and to start supply immediately, had not done the same. Despite receipt of the notice of show cause, no reply thereto was given .. The respondent necessarily has to take further action to get the supply of the required steel. Therefore, they exercised the power and issued notice to the petitioner which would be consistent with the principles of natural justice and passed the offending order black-listing the petitioner for a period of two years. The conduct of the petitioner constrained the respondents to pass the order of black-li._sting. The exercise of the power, therefore, cannot be said to be unwarranted nor arbitrary nor irrelevant. The High Court, therefore, is right in declining to interfere with the offending order in exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. We, therefore, find no ground warranting interference under Article 136. The S.L.P. is accordingly dismissed. G.N. Petitioner dismissed.

p. 108, margin C