Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (2.06 seconds)
Documents citing B.D. Yadav And M.R. Meshram Engineers ... vs Administrator Of The City Of Nagpur And ... on 18 March, 1982

Hcil Hcll Jv And 2 Others vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 24 October, 2013

The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that having regard to the circumstances in the case it must be held that the Tender Committee had the power to accept the appellant's tender. Referring to the books "Bills of Exchange" by Byles, and "Cheques in Law and Practice" by M.S. Parthasarathy, it has been argued that certified cheques are as good as cash and the irregularity relied upon in the appellant's submitting his tender could be validly waived by the Diesel Locomotive Works. Reliance was also placed on M/s B.D. Yadav and M.R. Meshram v. Administrator of the City of Nagpur, AIR 1984 Bombay 351 and T.V Subhadra Amma v. Kerala Board of Revenue.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs.Lakshmi Mohan vs M/S.Airtech Projects Engineers Pvt. ... on 22 March, 2013

The decision relied on by the Bank reported in AIR 1984 Bombay 351 (M/s.B.D.Yadav & M.R.Meshram E. & C. Vs. Administrator) does not, in any manner, advance the cause of the petitioner Bank and in fact, is in favour of the borrower. On the admitted fact and as evidenced by the tender conditions, payment of 10% EMD being a mandatory condition, we reject the contention of the Bank. The question of substantial compliance does not appeal to us. With no power of relaxation and it is not the case of the Bank too, with two participants alone taking pay order from the very same Bank which is also the secured creditor and the Authorised Officer, it is difficult to presume any such power of relaxation. The Bank has also not placed any materials indicating such practices in the past.
Madras High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Vinayak Desai vs State Of Goa And Ors. on 24 October, 1994

12. It was submitted that, in the given circumstances, the condition regarding deposit of requisite amount of EMD was an essential condition relating to the eligibility of the tenderer to be a good tenderer worthy of consideration and therefore, when the same was not adhered to by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the facts disclosed a wrongful preference in respondent No. 3's favour. He distinguished the facts in the decision of this Division Bench in W.P. No. 91 of 1994 decided on 16th March, 1994 and relied upon the decisions in M/s. B.D. Yadav and M.R. Meshram v. Administrator of the City of Nagpur, A.I.R. 1984 Bombay 351 and in Sri N.O. Shetty v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation by its Managing Director, Bangalore and others, where the Bombay decision was distinguished on facts but after approving the principles stated therein. Mr. Kantak also pointed out that in M/s. Poddar Steel Corporation v. M/s. Ganesh Engineering works and others, the aforesaid Bombay decision was approved.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S. Sesiah & Sons Rep. By Its Partner S. ... vs The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity ... on 10 March, 1998

14. In an equity jurisdiction, the Court has to took into the substance as distinguished from the spirit of the letter of conditions. When the respondent accepted the payment on 6.9.97 at a postponed date it could not any longer insist that time was of the essence. If, indeed, the parties having originally so provided have expressly or by implication waived the provision or condition so made, when accepted the deposit. The stipulation in question is not an essential element, but only with intent to speed up the work without break. While construing the terms of a contract or conditions normally, better to keep in view the object and intention of the parties to the transaction and as to their view as to the meaning and effect of the language of the condition. It is different thing if the condition not fulfilled, but fulfilled subsequently, accepted without reservation, in a situation if cancelled it frustrates the object of the contract resulting in delaying the construction. Therefore, from the stand-point of speeding up the work, having handed over the possession of the site and accepting the belated payment, when time was still there to execute the agreement, assigning such grounds referred above subsequently, the cancellation of the contract by the respondents amounts to exercising the power or discretion arbitrarily, that too, by a non-speaking order. Under Clause 10.3, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board or the competent authority to decide the tender shall have the right to relax or waive any of the conditions stipulated in the specification wherever deemed necessary in the interest of the Board for good and sufficient reason, ought to have exercised the discretion and waived the condition, instead of cancelling the contract.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M.V. Krishna Reddy Rep. By His Son And ... vs The Commissioner, Commissionerate Of ... on 16 December, 1994

He has also relied on a decision of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in B.D. Yadav & M.R. Meshram, E. & C. v. Administrator, AIR 1984 Bombay 351 to show that it is the duty of the Court to see whether non-compliance alleged was with regard to essential condition, or only an ancillary condition of the tender notice. It is a case where the tender notice required the Earnest Money Deposit shall be in the form of call deposit or bank draft or national savings certificates, the respondent No. 2 therein made a deposit through a time deposit receipt which was pledged in the Office of the Development Engineer along with the tender forms.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Tata Engineering And ... vs Municipal Corporation Of The City Of ... on 22 November, 1991

ment of a similar provision, on the right to get refund. Shortly stated the facts in that case were these: The appel- lant brought into the municipal limits Horlicks in bulk containers (large steel drums) for being packed in unit containers (glass bottles) at the packing station in Banga- lore and thereafter exported outside the municipal limits. In respect of the milkfood so exported in glass bottles the appellants sought refund of octroi on the ground that there was no consumption, use or sale within the municipal limits and the goods were exported. Rule 24 of the Octroi Rules that were in force in Bangalore city provided:
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Appu Food Products vs The State Of Tamil Nadu

9.2 The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Clause 10(viii)(a) deals with the submission of the affidavit, which is only to be notarised and not the NOC, which is to be submitted under Clause 10(viii)(b) and it does not require any notarisation. However, the second respondent rejected the petitioner's bid on the ground that no objection certificate was not notarised, as per Clause 10(viii)(a) of the tender condition, which is arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable. Even if it is necessary, it is only a minor deficiency, which can be rectified, as observed by the Bombay High Court in B.D.Yadav and another v. Administrator of the City of Nagpur and another [1982 SCC onLine Bom 89: AIR 1984 Bom 351]. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel prayed for allowing the writ petition.
Madras High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next