Dismissed

Mkc Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC13 Oct 2025SAW/1245/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal seeking restoration of a terminated railway contract. The court held that under the Specific Relief Act, a terminated contract cannot be restored, only damages can be claimed. The court distinguished cited precedents and noted that natural justice does not apply to tender matters.

What did the court decide?

No interference warranted; appeal dismissed pending applications also disposed of.

Mkc Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Union of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:41747-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1245/2025

¶4

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15377/2025

¶6

MKC Infrastructure Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At MKC House, 10, Shiv Nagar, Anjar Ring Road, Opp. Gulab Mill, Anjar - Kutch - 370110 - Gujarat Through Its Director Mr. Nishantbhai R. Bambhania R/o 48, Kailash Nagar, Dabda, Anjar Ring Road, Anjar - Kutch Gujarat.

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Union Of India, Through Railway Board Through Secretary, Rail Mantralaya (Board), Railway Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi- 110001.

¶10

General Manager, North Western Railway, Head Quarter Building, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur- 302017.

¶11

Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), North Western Railway, 5th Floor, Head Quarter Building, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur- 302017.

¶12

Chief Engineer (Construction)- IV, North Western Railway, 5th Floor, Head Quarter Building, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur- 302017.

¶13

Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Mall Road, North Western Railway, Ajmer- 305001.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Mr. Ms.	Rakesh Kumar Abhimanyu Singh Bhati Priyanka Chouhan
	Ms.	Nisha Jhaknariya
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	C.S. Sinha for Union of India

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

¶17

Order

¶18

13/10/2025

¶19

[2025:RJ-JP:41747-DB]

¶20

[SAW-1245/2025]

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

Challenge is to the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the claim of the appellant for allowing them to continue the work under the contract awarded to them, which stands terminated vide letter dated 01.09.2025.

¶23

The learned Single Judge has rejected it on the ground that the dispute between the parties would be adjudicated separately, since the work relates to an important infrastructural project of laying down railway line, no interference is required to be made even if the respondents have floated Special Limited Tenders for the purpose of getting the work done from any other party. Learned counsel submits that since they were ready to perform their work and pace of their work was also more than required, there was no occasion for terminating their contract and the appellant ought to be allowed to continue. He further submits that after terminating their contract, no third person should be allowed to perform the work which was started by them.

¶24

He relies on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST): AIR 2023 SC 2717 as well as Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Chunilal Nanda and Ors.:(2006) 5 SCC 399 .

¶25

We have considered the submissions. 5. We find that the contracts stands already terminated vide letter dated 01.09.2025, even under the Specific Relief Act, a contract which stands already terminated cannot be restored. Taking que from the provisions of the Act, we find that even if the Court reaches to a conclusion that the termination was bad on any

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[2025:RJ-JP:41747-DB]

¶28

[SAW-1245/2025]

¶29

of the reasons, we do not agree with the contentions of the learned counsel that this Court can restore a contract which stands already terminated in law. The only remedy available to a contractor is to claim damages and compensation and apart from that the floating of the new Special Limited Tenders does not bar the appellant to participate in the fresh tender which have been issued, if the appellant fulfills the conditions of the said tender. However, considering the fact that in matters relating to tender neither the principle of natural justice would have any place nor the principles of equity have any application.

¶30

Moreover, we find that the learned Single Judge has protected the rights of the appellant to the extent of directing that any tenders awarded for the further work would be subject to the decision of the Court

¶31

The judgment cited above would have no application in the present case.

¶32

In view thereto, no interference is warranted. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶34

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J

¶35

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶36

GAURAV/DIKSHA-153

Mkc Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mkc Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajjan Lal Sharma Son of Shri Sukh Dev Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Silver Square Corporation India Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer

Dr. Mahendra Singh S/O Sh. Ram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

The State of Rajasthan through Secretary Vs M/S Ganesh Shankar Pandey and Company

Kiran Balotiya D/O Prahalad Balotiya Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr. Pradeep Kumar S/O Shyam Sunder Lal Srivastava Vs State of Rajasthan