Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 179 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Galaxy Transport ... vs M/S New J.K. Roadways,Fleet Owners And ... on 18 December, 2020

Tirupati Cement Products & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 May, 2023

In Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways [Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways, (2021) 16 SCC 808 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1035] , a three-Judge Bench again reiterated that the authority that authors the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and thus, its interpretation should not be second- guessed by a court in judicial review proceedings. It was observed as thus : (SCC paras 17-18 & 20) "17.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

Sanjay Kr Singh vs Purbanchal Buildtech Pvt Ltd And 6 Ors on 2 August, 2024

25. This Court referred to various decisions on the subject and stated the legal principles as follows : (Galaxy Transport Agencies case [Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners & Transport Contractors, (2021) 16 SCC 808 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1035], SCC paras 14-20) "14. In a series of judgments, this Court has held that the authority that authors the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and thus, its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review proceedings.
Gauhati High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S Shyam - Full Document

Page No.# 1/43 vs Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Ltd ... on 12 August, 2022

(xxvii) While exercising the power of judicial review of any contract of public service the Court should not interfere with lightly and in any case, there should not be any interim order derailing the entire process of the services meant for larger public good as the grant of interim injunction by the Court helps no one except a contractor who lost a contract bid and has only caused loss to the State with no corresponding gain to anyone. (emphasis provided) [Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489; Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651; Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517; Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216; Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622; Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818; Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489; Galaxy Transport Agencies Vs. New J.K. Roadways, (2021) 16 SCC 808; Uflex Ltd. Vs. State of T.N., (2022) 1 SCC 165; N.G. Projects Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain, (2022) 6 SCC 127; National High Speed Rail Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Montecarlo Ltd., (2022) 6 SCC 401]
Gauhati High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - M R Pathak - Full Document

Sanjay Kr Singh vs Purbanchal Buildtech Pvt Ltd And 6 Ors on 2 August, 2024

25. This Court referred to various decisions on the subject and stated the legal principles as follows : (Galaxy Transport Agencies case [Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners & Transport Contractors, (2021) 16 SCC 808 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1035], SCC paras 14-20) "14. In a series of judgments, this Court has held that the authority that authors the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and thus, its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review proceedings.
Gauhati High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S Shyam - Full Document

Vaibhav Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 24 May, 2022

10. A similar view has yet again been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.786 of 2022, "M/s Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Resoursys Telecom & others", arising out of an SLP (C) No.16671 of 2021,, wherein, in paragraph no.16, the Hon'ble Apex Court while extracting the excerpts from the judgment of the "Galaxy Transport Agencies Vs. New J.K. Roadways", it had observed in its paragraph no.21, that its not within the purview of the Court to analysis, and to determine the conditions, which are to be given in the contract. The tender conditions are to only adopted by the author and it cannot be widened by the judicial interference. Paragraph no.21.1 and 21.2, is extracted hereunder:-
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S K Sharma - Full Document

Konkan Railways Corporation Limited vs Union Of India Through Chief ... on 13 March, 2025

The principles laid down in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), Montecarlo Ltd. (supra) and Silppi Construction Contractors (supra) were reiterated with approval by three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders, Transports and Suppliers Vs New J. K. Roadways, Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors and others (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - B Dangre - Full Document

Mr Kunaal Prasad vs Union Of India Ministry Of Planning & ... on 3 November, 2023

(Galaxy Transport Agencies case [Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners & Transport Contractors, (2021) 16 SCC 808 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1035] , SCC paras 14-20) "14. In a series of judgments, this Court has held that the authority that authors the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and thus, its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review proceedings.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next