Search Results Page

Search Results

61 - 70 of 13238 (2.77 seconds)
Documents citing Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979

Cbi vs Y. Harish Chandra Prasad Ors(3) on 11 December, 2024

15. The second limitation on the discretion of the Govt. in grant of largess is in regard to the persons to whom such largess may be granted. It is now well settled as a result of the decision of this Court in Ramana D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India that the Govt. is not free like an ordinary individual, in selecting the recipients for its largess and it cannot choose to deal with any person it pleases in its absolute and unfettered discretion.
Delhi District Court Cites 96 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Agc Sscpl Jv A Joint Venture Of M/S A G ... vs The State Of Mahrashtra And Others on 11 December, 2019

20 "35. It was further held that if others (such as the appellant in Ramana Dayaram Shetty case) were aware that non-fulfilment of the eligibility condition of being a registered IInd class hotelier would not be a bar for consideration, they too 25 would have submitted a tender, but were ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 09:45:26 ::: {25} W.P. No. 11547-2019 prevented from doing so due to the eligibility condition, which was relaxed in the case of Respondent 4. This resulted in unequal treatment in favour of Respondent 4 -- treatment that was 5 constitutionally impermissible. Expounding on this, it was held: (SCC p. 504, para 10)3 "10. ... It is indeed unthinkable that in a democracy governed by the rule of law the executive Government or any of its officers 10 should possess arbitrary power over the interests of the individual. Every action of the executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of the rule of law and its bare minimal 15 requirement. And to the application of this principle it makes no difference whether the exercise of the power involves affectation of some right or denial of some privilege."
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of West Bengal And Others vs New Kenilworth Hotel Private Limited ... on 26 February, 2026

68. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court went on to observe that it must be taken to be the law where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas "or licences" or granting other forms of largesse, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its actions must be in conformity with a standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largesse, including award of jobs, 10 Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, reported at (1979) 3 SCC 489 24 2026:CHC-AS:338-DB contracts, quotas, "licences", etc., it was held, must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standards or norms and if the Government departs from such standards or norms in any particular cases or case, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary but was based on some valid principle which in it itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharya - Full Document

Rampal Singh vs The Management Of Central Institute Of ... on 31 October, 1990

We do not find it difficult to agree with Mr. Dwivedi's submissions that respondent 1 is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 and in its dealing with the citizens of India it would be required to act within the ambit of Rule of Law and would not be permitted to conduct its activities arbitrarily. It is too late in the day for an institution like respondent 1 to adopt the posture that the activity in question is commercial and as respondent 1 is engaged in trading activity it would be open to it to act as it considers appropriate for the purpose of protecting its business interest. An instrumentality of the State as has been laid down by this Court in a series of authoritative decisions beginning with R.B. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi , and a number of decisions thereafter has to act within the ambit of Rule of Law and would not be allowed to conduct itself arbitrarily and in its dealings with the public would be liable to judicial review.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Cobra Industrial Security Forces ... vs The State Of Bihar on 20 October, 2020

"7. The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has been settled by the decision of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489, Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (1981)1 SCC 568 ; CCCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985) 1 SCC 260:1985 SCC (Tax) 75, Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651;.
Patna High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - R R Prasad - Full Document

B.C.Rajesh, vs Andhra Pradesh Southern Power ... on 18 September, 2025

We must reiterate the words of caution that this Court has stated right from the time when Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] was decided almost 40 years ago, namely, that the words used in the tender documents cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous -- they must be given meaning and their necessary significance. In this context, the use of the word "metro" in Clause 4.2(a) of Section III of the bid documents and its connotation in ordinary parlance cannot be overlooked.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hon Ble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam vs Union Of India on 13 December, 2013

Here we have already taken a note of the judgment in the case of Nazir Ahmed vs. The King-Emperor (supra) as well as Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and others (supra) as also Uttar Pradesh Upbhokta Sehkari Sangh Limited through its Managing Director and Branch Manager vs. Vijay Shankar Rai (supra). These judgments clearly provide that where the rules so stipulate then a thing has to be done in the same manner or not to be done at all. Reading the above judgments, we find that the issue of competence of the Ministry of Home Affairs or the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions has not been gone into at all in the said decision of the Coordinate Bench.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Previous   3 4 5 6 7   8 9 10 11 12 Next