Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 197 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs Amr Dev Prabha on 18 March, 2020

Shree Ram Corporation vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 24 August, 2021

6.9 The other decisions being Joshi Technologies International vs. Union of India (Supra) and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., vs. AMR Dev Prabha (Supra) as relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the writ applicant would also be of no avail to the writ applicant in the present set of facts especially when the terms and conditions of the contract are clear and unambiguous to the extent of forfeiture of deposit in case of premature termination by the contractor. Once a particular Page 20 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 10 21:02:22 IST 2021 C/SCA/10694/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2021 clause is present in the contract and the same has been accepted by the parties by signing on the dotted line, then it is not open for one party to contend that the said condition cannot be pressed into service for the admitted lapses. Even otherwise the Writ Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot rewrite the terms of contract to add or delete any ingredient so as to satisfy the grievance of a party signatory to the contract against the terms and conditions of the contract.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V Nanavati - Full Document

Megha Engineering And Infrastructures ... vs State Of Karnataka on 2 March, 2023

In the judgment in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev Prabha [Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev Prabha, (2020) 16 SCC 759] , under the heading "Deference to authority's interpretation", this Court stated : (SCC p. 776, paras 50-52) '50. Lastly, we deem it necessary to deal with another fundamental problem. It is obvious that Respondent 1 seeks to only enforce terms of NIT. Inherent in such exercise is interpretation of contractual terms. However, it must be noted that judicial interpretation of contracts in the sphere of commerce stands on a distinct footing than while interpreting statutes.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

M/S Verve Human Care Laboratories vs Union Of India & Ors. on 2 September, 2022

19. The scope of judicial review in tenders has been reiterated in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev Prabha, (2020) 16 SCC 759, wherein it has been noted that principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance, and that the tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a Civil Court [See also Uflex Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra)]. It was further stated that attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. The relevant paragraphs of said Judgement are reproduced as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Afr M/S Aroon Food Services Pvt. Ltd vs Airports Authority Of India on 6 September, 2022

In Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. AMR Dev Prava and others, (2020) 16 SCC 759 : 2020 SCC Online SC 335, apex Court held that writs are impermissible when the allegation is solely with regard to violation of a contractual right or duty, thus, the persons seeking writ relief must also actively satisfy the Court that the right it is seeking is one in pubic law. Further, it is imperative that in addition to arbitrariness, illegality or discrimination under Article 14 or encroachment of Page 55 of 57 freedom under Article 19 (1) (g), public interest too is demonstrated before remedy is sought, though the threshold for the latter need not be high.
Orissa High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

M/S Ramalingam Construction Co. ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2023

9. Reply has also been filed by respondent No.5 making almost the same pleadings as have been made by respondents 1 to 4 in their reply and learned counsel for respondent No.5 has also made more or less the same submissions as made by learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4. Further reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. AMR Dev Prabha and Others (2020) 16 SCC 759, Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517, P.C. Snehal Construction Company Vs. Municipal Corporation, AIR 2017 MP 200, B.S.N. Joshi and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA NAGDEVE Signing time: 31-10-2023 17:26:54 Page 8 of 13 Sons Limited Vs. Nair Coal Services Limited (2006) 11 SCC 548, N.G. Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and Others (2022) 6 SCC 127, Uflex Limited Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (2022) 1 SCC 517, Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Union of India (2020) 16 SCC 489, Montecarlo Limited Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (2016) 15 SCC 272 and Agmatel India Private Limited Vs. Resoursys Telecom and Others (2022) 5 SCC 362.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P Verma - Full Document

Central Coalfields Limited vs M/S Aretpl-At(Jv) on 4 July, 2022

In "Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. AMR Dev Prabha" (2020) 16 SCC 759, the decision by the employer to extend time to furnish performance security was questioned before the writ Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while approving condonation of delay of 49 days in producing bank guarantees observed that there is no prohibition in law against public authorities granting relaxations for bonafide reasons.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next