Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Elcome Technologies Pvt. Ltd. And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors on 21 November, 2018

Author: Sarang V. Kotwal

Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari, Sarang V. Kotwal

                                                                   1                                              WPL 3916-18.odt-510

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION 
                            WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3916 OF 2018


Elcome Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.                                          ]          ... Petitioners

           Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                               ]          ... Respondents


Dr. Birendra Saraf a/w Mr. Hasit Seth, Mr. Aniketh Nair & Mr. Nihal
Shaikh i/b Mr. Mustafa Motiwala for Petitioners.
Ms. Poornima Kantharia, GP a/w Deepali Patankar, Asst. to GP (O.S.)
for State - Respondent Nos.1 to 3.


                                                        CORAM :-  B. P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                                     SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
                                                        DATE     :-  NOVEMBER 21, 2018

P. C. :-


1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

2. Learned GP points out that she has received papers in the afternoon only and need reasonable time to obtain instructions. She is seeking time of one day only.

URS                                                                                                                            1 of 2




     ::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2018                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2018 01:18:59 :::
                                                                    2                                              WPL 3916-18.odt-510

3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, we find that in open auction and thereafter in reverse bidding, the Petitioner was placed at L1. Thereafter in fresh tender process, the Petitioner states that the Respondent No.1 was shown at L1 at 4.59 p.m. and at 6.00 p.m., the Petitioner was shown at L1. On the next day, however, name of the Petitioner vanished from the portal.

4. In view of these averments, issue notice, returnable on 24/11/2018.

5. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to file their reply without fail in the meanwhile.

6. Though the Respondents may continue with the tender process, no work order be issued till then.

7. Stand over to 24/11/2018.





(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)                                                     (B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

URS                                                                                                                            2 of 2




     ::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2018                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2018 01:18:59 :::