STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH vs KlSHORI LAL MINOCHA

The Supreme Court held that there was no concluded contract between the respondent and the State Government as the requirements of Article 299 of the Constitution were not met. The Court ruled that the absence of a statutory rule permitting recovery of deficiency on resale from the respondent precluded any liability. Furthermore, the last part of Rule 357 of the Excise Manual, which addressed default in payment, had not been published as required, thus lacking the force of law. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision.