https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309704 A power purchase agreement entered into by a government company was held not to be a statutory contract, because bidding under the Electricity Act and reference to Section 63 guidelines did not itself import statutory terms. Even so, State termination of a non-statutory contract can remain open to judicial review under Article 226 where arbitrariness, unfairness, or Article 14 violation is alleged. The termination failed because the contractual sequence required a default notice, three months to cure, and only then a termination notice; a show-cause notice on conditions subsequent did not satisfy that requirement. Earlier litigation also barred re-agitation of the concluded issue on conditions subsequent. en-us Wed, 16 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 May 2024 18:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309704 A power purchase agreement entered into by a government company was held not to be a statutory contract, because bidding under the Electricity Act and reference to Section 63 guidelines did not itself import statutory terms. Even so, State termination of a non-statutory contract can remain open to judicial review under Article 226 where arbitrariness, unfairness, or Article 14 violation is alleged. The termination failed because the contractual sequence required a default notice, three months to cure, and only then a termination notice; a show-cause notice on conditions subsequent did not satisfy that requirement. Earlier litigation also barred re-agitation of the concluded issue on conditions subsequent. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309704