Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 252 (2.32 seconds)
Documents citing Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. (Former ... vs The State Of Karnataka, Department Of ... on 13 September, 2007

M/S. Tdi International India (P) Ltd vs The Regional Executive Director on 13 December, 2017

44.In Michigam Rubber (India) Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka, the Court, after referring to Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa and Tejas Constructions & Infrastructure (P) Ltd Vs. Municipal Council, Sendhwa expressed the view that the basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play and actions are amenable to judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose and if the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities. It further observed that fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and the courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by courts is very limited unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers and greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities in the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract. The Court also laid emphasis on public interest and the prudence in applying the principle of restraint where the action is fair and reasonable and does not smack of mala fides. It was also emphasised that the Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government simply because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wise or logical.
Madras High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Tdi International India (P) Ltd vs The Regional Executive Director on 13 December, 2017

44.In Michigam Rubber (India) Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka, the Court, after referring to Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa and Tejas Constructions & Infrastructure (P) Ltd Vs. Municipal Council, Sendhwa expressed the view that the basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play and actions are amenable to judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose and if the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities. It further observed that fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and the courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by courts is very limited unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers and greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities in the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract. The Court also laid emphasis on public interest and the prudence in applying the principle of restraint where the action is fair and reasonable and does not smack of mala fides. It was also emphasised that the Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government simply because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wise or logical.
Madras High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pratap Trading Company vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 22 November, 2017

In that case, this Court held a particular term of NIT as essential (confirming the view of the employer) and also referred to the "admonition" given in Jagdish Mandal followed in Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka. Thereafter, this Court rejected the challenge to the employer's decision holding Bakshi Security and Personnel Services ineligible to participate in the tender.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next