Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 225 (1.57 seconds)
Documents citing Rajasthan Housing Board And Another vs G.S. Investments And Another on 31 October, 2006

Shri Mahadev Shahra Sukrat Trust ... vs Urban Development And Environment ... on 22 March, 2024

(ii) It is further contended that the highest bidder does not have a vested right and in the judicial review, the Court can only examine the decision making process and not the decision itself. He further placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. G.S. Investments reported in 2007(1) SCC 477 [Relevant para are reproduced in para 15 of the judgment ].
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Shri Mahadev Shahra Sukrat Trust Thru. ... vs Ministry Of Urban Development And ... on 22 March, 2024

(ii) It is further contended that the highest bidder does not have a vested right and in the judicial review, the Court can only examine the decision making process and not the decision itself. He further placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. G.S. Investments reported in 2007(1) SCC 477 [relevant para are reproduced above in para 18].
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Indore Education And Services Society ... vs Ministry Of Housing And Environment on 22 March, 2024

(ii) It is further contended that the highest bidder does not have a vested right and in the judicial review, the Court can only examine the decision 62 W.P. 3523 of 2017 making process and not the decision itself. He further placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. G.S. Investments reported in 2007(1) SCC 477 [relevant para are reproduced above in para 18].
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Va Tech Wabag Limited vs Steel Authority Of India Limited on 17 January, 2025

In the cases of Laxmikant v. Satyawan, (1996) 4 SCC 208 ; Meerut Development Authority v. Assn. of Management Studies, (2009) 6 SCC 171; Rajasthan Housing Board v. G.S. Investments, (2007) 1 SCC 477; U.P. Avas EvamVikasParishad v. Om Prakash Sharma, (2013) 5 SCC 182, it has been held that until the bid of the bidder is accepted and the agreement has been entered into, there accrues no vested right upon the bidder to challenge the cancellation of the tender.
Orissa High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - S Ratho - Full Document

The Haryana State Agricultural ... vs Sadhu Ram on 8 April, 2008

That apart, in view of the decision of this court in Rajasthan Housing Board and another Vs. G.S. Investments and another [supra], since the final authority to approve the bids was with the Chief Administrator, it is obvious that a person who had made the highest bid in the auction did not acquire any right to have the auction concluded in his favour until the Chief Administrator had passed an order to that effect and the auction proceedings could always be cancelled. It is on record that the offers made by the respondents in the auction dated 8th of July, 2004 could not fetch the amount expected from the said plots and that is the reason a fresh Public Notice was issued by the appellants for a subsequent auction. The said auction was held and as noted herein earlier, from the said auction, the price fetched was much higher than the offers made by the respondents. That being the position and considering the fact that a subsequent auction was held and concluded, it was not open to the High Court to direct the allotment of alternative plots at the rate offered by the respondents treating the auction held on 8th of July, 2004 to be valid.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 30 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Sri Ram Builders vs State Of M.P. . on 25 April, 2014

59. In any event, these are issues which would involve adjudication of disputed questions of fact which can only be suitably adjudicated in the civil suit as directed by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The appellant shall be at liberty to seek its remedies against MPRTC for breach of contract. Our conclusion that the High Court was right in rejecting the contentions of the Appellant herein is also supported by the law laid in Rajasthan Housing Board vs. G.S. Investments (supra) which was relied upon by Mr. Cama. We may notice here the following excerpt:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Agra Development Authority Agra vs Anirudh Vir Singh on 29 August, 2014

The law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid paragraph in support of the proposition of law that so long as an order regarding final acceptance of the bid had not been passed by the Chairman of the Housing Board, the highest bidder acquire no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour and the auction proceedings could always be cancelled. Further, he has placed reliance on another decision of this Court in Lasmikant referred to supra. In support of the proposition of law this Court has rightly pointed out that the "State" or the authority, which can be held to the "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, is not bound to accept the highest tender/offer or bid and the Government could validly retain its power to accept or reject the highest bid in the interest of public revenue.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document

The Haryana State Agricultural ... vs Sadhu Ram [Alongwith Civil Appeal No. ... on 8 April, 2008

That apart, in view of the decision of this Court in Rajasthan Housing Board and Anr. v. G.S. Investments and Anr. [supra], since the final authority to approve the bids was with the Chief Administrator, it is obvious that a person who had made the highest bid in the auction did not acquire any right to have the auction concluded in his favour until the Chief Administrator had passed an order to that effect and the auction proceedings could always be cancelled. It is on record that the offers made by the respondents in the auction dated 8th of July, 2004 could not fetch the amount expected from the said plots and that is the reason a fresh Public Notice was issued by the appellants for a subsequent auction. The said auction was held and as noted herein earlier, from the said auction, the price fetched was much higher than the offers made by the respondents. That being the position and considering the fact that a subsequent auction was held and concluded, it was not open to the High Court to direct the allotment of alternative plots at the rate offered by the respondents treating the auction held on 8th of July, 2004 to be valid.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 33 - T Chatterjee - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next