Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 251 (2.59 seconds)
Documents citing Asia Foundation & Construction Ltd vs Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd. & ... on 17 December, 1996

Bhagwati Foundation And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Mcd And Ors. on 31 October, 2006

406. So far as the pronouncement of Asia Foundation and Contract Limited v. Trafalgar House Construction Limited and Ors. is concerned, the Apex Court was examining the permissible limits of interference by a court of law in a matter relating to award of contract. In this context, recognising the well established parameters of judicial review, in matters relating to grant of contracts, the court held thus:
Delhi High Court Cites 174 - Cited by 0 - G Mittal - Full Document

Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Ors vs The Union Of India & Ors on 28 January, 2011

101. In the instant case also, it is the admitted position even from the bid documents as well as the affidavit in opposition of the respondent-State and GMDA that the water project in question is taken over by those respondents taking financial assistance from the JICA on certain condition including the conditions that the terms of the bid documents has to be approved by them and within a particular time the work of project has to be completed. Like the Asian Development Bank, JICA is also insisting upon the GMDA to abide by their conditions as mentioned in the agreement between the Union of India through the President of India and the JICA as it is funding the project. According to this Court, the decision of the Apex Court in Asia Foundation and Construction Ltd. (Supra) would be more helpful to come to a proper conclusion over the dispute between the parties particularly regarding the reducement or relaxation of the terms relating to the turn over or the length of pipe and the condition imposed by JICA. When an authority is funding to any person or institution for a project or work then the said authority has obviously the power to impose condition to protect its finance.
Gauhati High Court Cites 86 - Cited by 1 - U B Saha - Full Document

Association Of Registration Plates vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 November, 2004

By highlighting the above factors, it is submitted that if multiple manufacturers are involved in implementation of the policy, it is not likely to work satisfactorily. It is submitted that a single selected manufacturer would not just be marketing, servicing and providing a new product but would engage in assisting the State in fulfillment of statutory obligations to grant the high security registrations to the owners of motor-vehicles in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is submitted that tender conditions are suitably formulated for performance guarantee, experience and understanding of business, financial strength, and capacity of creating and installing the entire infrastructure and networking. Finally, it is submitted that the eligibility criteria prescribed by the State is commensurate not only with the scale of operation and size of network to be created by the operator but also with statutory requirement of States' continued delivery of its obligations to vehicle owners without any interruption. It is contended that through open tender, identifying and selecting an approved manufacturer to discharge statutory duty of RTO is not an act of the State creating any monopoly in favour of any private party . The grievance of infringement of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is misconceived. Reliance is placed on Air India vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd., [2000(2) SCC 617] and Asia Foundation & Construction Ltd. Vs. Trafalgar House Construction Ltd. [1997 (1) SCC 738].
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 208 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next