Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Thursday, 30 July 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2025-01-09 allowed

& ORS vs PAM DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE

Bench: 2 — Bela M. Trivedi, Satish Chandra Sharma

In Brief

A contractor challenged a government agency's debarment order barring it from tenders for two years, claiming the penalty was beyond contractual scope. The agency subsequently issued fresh debarment orders following procedural reviews. The contractor sought to amend its civil suit to include these later orders. The High Court permitted the amendment, holding that all orders stemmed from a single continuous cause of action originating in the initial memo, not separate fresh claims. The Supreme Court upheld this, ruling that amendments introducing subsequent events in a continuous chain do not change the suit's character and no fresh Section 80 notice was required.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Continuous Cause of Action Administrative Law Tender and Debarment

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login