Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 308 (1.63 seconds)
Documents citing Montecarlo Ltd vs Ntpc Ltd on 18 October, 2016

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

Etc., reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking note of the earlier decisions rendered in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651; Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492; Air India Limited Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617; Karnataka SIIDC Ltd. Vs. Cavalet India Ltd., (2005) 4 SCC 456; Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 138; B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. Vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 548; Jagdish Mondal Vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517; Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216; Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818; Montecarlo Vs. NTPC Ltd, AIR 2016 SC 4946; Municipal Corporation, Ujjain Vs. BVG India Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 462; and Caretel Infotech Limited Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 2019 (6) SCALE 70, has held in paragraphs 19 and 20 as under:
Gauhati High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S Shyam - Full Document

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

Etc., reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking note of the earlier decisions rendered in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651; Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492; Air India Limited Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617; Karnataka SIIDC Ltd. Vs. Cavalet India Ltd., (2005) 4 SCC 456; Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 138; B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. Vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 548; Jagdish Mondal Vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517; Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216; Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818; Montecarlo Vs. NTPC Ltd, AIR 2016 SC 4946; Municipal Corporation, Ujjain Vs. BVG India Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 462; and Caretel Infotech Limited Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 2019 (6) SCALE 70, has held in paragraphs 19 and 20 as under:
Gauhati High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S Shyam - Full Document

Nish Techno Projects Private Limited vs Surat Municipal Corporation on 4 February, 2020

7.3 In Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd., (2016) 15 SCC 272, which finds reference in the decision of the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain v. BVG India Ltd., (supra), the Supreme Court held that 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; highly technical in nature. It was further held that exercise of power of judicial review would be called for if the approach is arbitrary or mala fide or procedure adopted is meant to favour one. The decision-making process should clearly show that the said maladies are kept at bay. But 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 Page 46 of 58 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 04:10:30 IST 2020 C/SCA/14107/2019 JUDGMENT floated, the court should follow the principle of restraint. Technical evaluation or comparison by the court would be impermissible.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - H Devani - Full Document

Khushal Singh Adhikari vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 12 May, 2022

35. Hence for the reasons and logic as aforesaid, this Court is of the view that since the case at hand relates to laying down of public road in the hills which is a public project for the benefit of public at large and that too for and on the basis of the wrongful interpretation, which has been sought to be argued by the counsel for the petitioner foundationed on a minor distinction which was attempted to be drawn to the interpretation of the word "tractor" in contravention to its statutory implications already considered above and decided by the competent Courts, including the Hon'ble Apex Court; the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that since the STB document is not classifying the term "tractor", as to be an agricultural vehicle or a commercial vehicle for all practical purposes in view of the interpretation given to the extracts, which has been referred to above from Law Lexicon and the judicial interpretation of Justice M.L. Single, the law determining the term "tractor" as to be an agricultural implement would prevail over the term given in STB document. Hence, the argument cannot be accepted by this Court at this stage. Consequently, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that continuing of the interim order granted by this Court, since being contrary to the public 34 interest, the same cannot be permitted to persist, installing the public project, hence the same is hereby vacated.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - S K Sharma - Full Document

Ncc Ltd vs Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd on 16 January, 2025

134. He further placed his reliance upon Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC reported in (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.
Orissa High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next