Goldstone Exports Limited And Ors. vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 23 August, 2002
G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka (supra) was followed in Poddar Steel Corpn. v. Ganesh Engg. Works (supra), and it was held thus :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.86 seconds)Tci Seaways Limited vs Food Corporation Of India, Regional ... on 7 November, 2002
81. There cannot also be any dispute about the position laid down in Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works.
M.V. Krishna Reddy Rep. By His Son And ... vs The Commissioner, Commissionerate Of ... on 16 December, 1994
A later Bench judgment referred to above, has followed the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works (1 supra), wherein it is held that the State and its instrumentalities are bound to conform to the standard or norm laid down in the notice inviting tenders unless the standard or norm prescribed is unreasonable or discriminatory. Therefore, I have no hesitation in following the latest Division Bench Judgment of this Court and hold that the petitioner had failed to comply with the tender conditions by furnishing Bank Guarantee only instead of a demand draft as required thereunder. In fact, he had furnished a demand draft for Rs. 75,000/-on 4-7-1994 for another contract viz., construction of a bridge across 'Yerrakalava' in the R & B Circle, Eluru, West Godavari District. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not aware of the implication of the tender conditions. As the respondents have followed the ruling of the latest Division Bench of this Court, I cannot find fault with the action taken by them.
Nandhini Delux vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By ... on 17 November, 2005
24. Applying the principles in G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka (9 supra) and Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works (10 supra), this Court holds that the "qualification data" as mentioned in general condition No. 2.2 read with special condition Nos.
Godavari Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs Agricultural Products Commissioner ... on 4 December, 2003
GJ. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka (supra) was followed in Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engg. Works (supra), and it was held thus:
M.V.V. Satyanarayana vs Engineer-In-Chief (R And B) And Anr. on 31 December, 2007
He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works and Ors. in support of his contention that every term in a tender need not be complied with in meticulous detail and that a tender cannot be rejected on a technical irregularity of little or no significance.
Baxalta Bioscience India Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Telangana, Health, Medical ... on 13 March, 2017
This Court, by considering G.J.Fernandezs case (supra),
Poddar Steel Corporations case (supra) and Michigan Rubber
(India) Limiteds case (supra) allowed the Writ Petition on the
ground that no prejudice would be caused to any of the bidders
whose price bid is opened and considered on competitive basis
by the second respondent therein and observed as follows:
K. Sudarshan Reddy vs Govt. Of A.P., Roads And Buildings Dept. ... on 25 January, 2005
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a decision reported in Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works, , wherein it is observed as under:
M/S. Jyothi Krishna Engineers vs State Bank Of Hyderabad, Rep. By The ... on 27 November, 1992
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Poddar Steel v. Ganesh Engineering, . In the said case, clause 6 of the tender notice required the tender to be accompanied by earnest money deposit by cash or by demand draft drawn on State Bank of India, while the appellant therein along with the tender document submitted a cheque of the Union Bank of India drawn on its own branch. Learned Judges of the High Court felt that there is a defect in tendering the earnest money deposit and the same is not in strict compliance of clause 6 of the tender notice. On that ground the High Court allowed the writ petition. While dealing with the said question, learned Judges of the Supreme Court, after referring to the decisions of Kerala and Bombay High Courts referred to supra, and AIR 1984 Bom 351, stated as follows (at p. 1580):
M/S. Cyano Pharma (P) Limited And ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its ... on 31 August, 2015
20. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon
the aforesaid decision in G.J. FERNANDEZs case (1 supra) apart
from the decision of the Supreme Court in PODDAR STEEL
CORPORATION v. GANESH ENIGNEERING WORKS and paras 6
and 8 thereof are relevant wherein the ratio of G.J. FERNANDEZs
case (1 supra) was reiterated, as under: