Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.56 seconds)
Documents citing Montecarlo Ltd vs Ntpc Ltd on 18 October, 2016

M/S Pt Bara Daya Energi India Private ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2024

After referring to the said authority, it has been ruled thus: (Montecarlo Ltd. case [Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd., (2016) 15 SCC 272], SCC p. 288, para 26) "26. We respectfully concur with the aforesaid statement of law. We have reasons to do so. In the present scenario, tenders are floated and offers are invited for highly complex technical subjects. It requires understanding and appreciation of the nature of work and the purpose it is going to serve. It is common knowledge in the competitive commercial field that technical bids pursuant to the notice inviting tenders are scrutinised by the technical experts and sometimes third-party assistance from those unconnected with the owner's organisation is taken. This ensures objectivity. Bidder's expertise and technical capability and capacity must be assessed by the experts. In the matters of financial assessment, consultants are appointed. It is because to check and ascertain that technical ability and the financial feasibility have sanguinity and are workable and realistic. There is a multi-prong complex approach;
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

M/S. Manu Creations vs Military Engineering Services on 5 April, 2023

In Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC [Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC, (2016) 15 SCC 272 : AIR 2016 SC 4946] it was held that where a decision is taken that is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserves the purpose for which the tender is floated, the court should follow the principle of restraint. Technical evaluation or comparison by the court would be impermissible. The principle that is applied to scan and understand an ordinary instrument relatable to contract in other spheres has to be treated differently than interpreting and appreciating tender documents relating to technical works and projects requiring special skills. The owner should be allowed to carry out the purpose and there has to be allowance of free play in the joints.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

A L Satish Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 November, 2022

In Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC [Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC, (2016) 15 SCC 272 : AIR 2016 SC 4946] it was held that where a decision is taken that is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserves the purpose for which the tender is floated, the court should follow the principle of restraint. Technical evaluation or comparison by the court would be impermissible. The principle that is applied to scan and understand an ordinary instrument relatable to contract in other spheres has to be treated differently than interpreting and appreciating tender documents relating to technical works and projects requiring special skills. The owner should be allowed to carry out the purpose and there has to be allowance of free play in the joints.
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Nec Technologies India Pvt Ltd vs Shivamogga Smart City Limited on 21 March, 2019

11. It is equally a well settled legal principle that award of contract whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction and in arriving at a commercial decision, considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reason if the tender conditions permit such relaxation. The State, its Corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. It is further held that even if some defect is found in the decision making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and must exercise only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on making out of a legal 19 point. It is also held that Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether or not its intervention is called for and only when it comes to the conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene. (See SANJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, supra and MAA BINDA EXPRESS CARRIER AND ANOTHER Vs. NORTH-EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY AND OTHERS (2014) 3 SCC 760, BAKSHI SECURITY AND PERSONNEL SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. Vs. DEVKISHAN COMPUTED PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS (2016) 8 SCC 446, MONTECARLO LIMITED Vs. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED (2016) 15 SCC 272, CONSORTIUM OF TITAGARH FIREMA ADLER S.P.A-TITAGARH WAGONS LTD. Vs. NAGPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER (2017) 7 SCC 486, CRRC CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. METRO LINK EXPRESS FOR GANDHINAGAR AND AHMEDABAD COMPANY LIMITED (2017) 8 SCC 20 282 AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, UJJAIN, supra.
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A Aradhe - Full Document

M/S Geo Consultancy Services vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2019

8. It is equally a well settled legal principle that award of contract whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction and in arriving at a commercial decision, considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reason if the tender conditions permit such relaxation. The State, its Corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all 13 concerned. It is further held that even if some defect is found in the decision making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and must exercise only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on making out of a legal point. It is also held that Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether or not its intervention is called for and only when it comes to the conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene. (See SANJAY KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. M/s. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. AIR 2014 SC 3778 and MAA BINDA EXPRESS CARRIER AND ANOTHER Vs. NORTH-EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY AND OTHERS (2014) 3 SCC 760, BAKSHI SECURITY AND PERSONNEL SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. Vs. DEVKISHAN COMPUTED PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS (2016) 8 SCC 446, MONTECARLO LIMITED Vs. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION 14 LIMITED (2016) 15 SCC 272, CONSORTIUM OF TITAGARH FIREMA ADLER S.P.A-TITAGARH WAGONS LTD. Vs. NAGPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER (2017) 7 SCC 486, CRRC CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. METRO LINK EXPRESS FOR GANDHINAGAR AND AHMEDABAD COMPANY LIMITED (2017) 8 SCC 282 AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, UJJAIN AND ANOTHER Vs. BVG INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS (2018) 5 SCC 462.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A Aradhe - Full Document

Voith Hydro Private Limited vs Karnataka Power Corporation Limited on 30 July, 2019

In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in 'RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY VS. THE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA 14 AND ORS.', AIR 1979 SC 1628, 'SACHIDANAND PANDEY & ANR. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.', (1987) 2 SCC 295, 'G.D.ZALANI & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1995 SUPP (2) SCC 512, 'M.P.OIL EXTRACTION AND ANR. VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. (1997) 7 SCC 592, 'VILLIANUR IYARKKAI PADUKAPPU MAIYAM VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.', (2009) 7 SCC 561, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION UJJAIN & ANR. VS. BVG INDIA LTD. & ORS.', (2018) 5 SCC 462, 'RAUNAQQ INTERNATIONAL LTD. VS. IVR CONSTRUCTION LTD. & ORS.', (1999) 1 SCC 492, ' RELIANCE TELECOM LTD. & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.', (2017) 4 SCC 269, 'MONTECARLO LTD. VS. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD.', (2016) 15 SCC 272, 'MICHIGAN RUBBER (INDIA) LTD. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.', (2012) 8 SCC 216, 'JAGDISH MANDAL VS. STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.', (2007) 14 SCC 517, 'ASIA FOUNDATION & COSNTRUCTION LTD. VS. TRAFALGAR HOUSE 15 CONSTRUCTION (I) LTD.', (1997) 1 SCC 738, 'SPANCO TELESYSTEMS AND SOLUTIONS LTD. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.', 2008 (2) KCCR 788,' AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. NAGPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.', (2016) 16 SCC 818, 'TEJAS CONSTRUCTIONS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SENDHWA & ANR.', (2012) 6 SCC 464. It is also urged that in the rejoinder no assertion is made by the petitioner that respondent No.2 is not the Original Equipment Manufacturer and the various difficulties pointed out in the statement of objections by not obtaining the equipments from the Original Equipment Manufacturer have not been controverted in the rejoinder. Attention of this Court has also been invited to averments made in paras 25 to 32 and it has been pointed out that the aforesaid averments have not been controverted by the petitioner.
Karnataka High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - A Aradhe - Full Document

T S Narayana vs Chamundeshwari Electricity on 22 July, 2019

8. It is equally a well settled legal principle that award of contract whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction and in arriving at a commercial decision, considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reason if the tender conditions permit such relaxation. The State, its Corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. It is further held that even if some defect is found in the decision making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and must exercise only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on making out of a legal point. It is also held that Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether 20 or not its intervention is called for and only when it comes to the conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene. (SEE: 'SANJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, supra and MAA BINDA EXPRESS CARRIER AND ANOTHER Vs. NORTH-EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY AND OTHERS', (2014) 3 SCC 760, 'BAKSHI SECURITY AND PERSONNEL SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. Vs. DEVKISHAN COMPUTED PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS', (2016) 8 SCC 446, 'MONTECARLO LIMITED Vs. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED', (2016) 15 SCC 272, 'CONSORTIUM OF TITAGARH FIREMA ADLER S.P.A-TITAGARH WAGONS LTD. Vs. NAGPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER', (2017) 7 SCC 486, 'CRRC CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. METRO LINK EXPRESS FOR GANDHINAGAR AND AHMEDABAD COMPANY LIMITED', (2017) 8 SCC 282 AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, UJJAIN, supra.
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A Aradhe - Full Document

M/S Macawber Beekay Pvt Ltd vs Ms/ Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd on 2 November, 2022

In Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC [Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC, (2016) 15 SCC 272 : AIR 2016 SC 4946] it was held that where a decision is taken that is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserves the purpose for which the tender is floated, the 25 court should follow the principle of restraint. Technical evaluation or comparison by the court would be impermissible. The principle that is applied to scan and understand an ordinary instrument relatable to contract in other spheres has to be treated differently than interpreting and appreciating tender documents relating to technical works and projects requiring special skills. The owner should be allowed to carry out the purpose and there has to be allowance of free play in the joints.
Karnataka High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document
1   2 Next