Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is argued that the respondent-corporation by ignoring the qualification conditions for bidding set out in the tender notice and MTFRTC, in case of respondents, has allotted carriage contract and extended public largesse to the tenderers, who were not eligible for the contract and while doing so, excluded similarly circumstances carriage contractors from the competition. Learned counsel for the respondents to buttress their arguments seek support from RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY Vs. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ORS. (1979) 3 Supreme Court Cases 489, TATA CELLULAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA, (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 651, GLOBAL ENERGY LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. ADANI EXPORTS LTD. AND OTEHRS (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 435, M/S. DHAMPUR SUGAR (KASHIPUR) LTD. Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS. 2007 AIR SCW 6169 and STATE OF KERALA VS. ZOOM DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS, (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 563.