Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.72 seconds)

Appu Food Products vs The State Of Tamil Nadu

(viii)Allied Integrated Society v. The State (NCT Delhi) [2018 SCC Online Del.9472] 10.2 The learned Senior Counsel further contended that when the tender document does not stipulate that an agreement with the vendor of the eggs should be submitted along with the tender document and the agreement furnished by the petitioner was only an additional document to establish its bona fides to supply eggs punctually and promptly, the second respondent ought not to have rejected the petitioner's bid on the ground that the agreement of the petitioner with vendors of the eggs was only for a period from 01.05.2016 to 30.04.2019 and it falls short of three months for the tender period i.e., 31.07.2019. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that the petitioner has not filed an appeal within 10 days from the date of rejection of its bid, in terms of Section 11 of the Act, as the subsequent tender notification was floated on 20.08.2018; the statutory period permitting an appeal to be filed within a period of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in 24 days is procedural in nature, whereas the right to file an appeal is substantive in nature; and the substantive right of the petitioner cannot be denied for mere procedural infraction, especially when the respondents will not be prejudiced in any manner. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel sought to allow the writ petitions.
Madras High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

Appu Food Products vs The State Of Tamil Nadu

(viii)Allied Integrated Society v. The State (NCT Delhi) [2018 SCC Online Del.9472] 10.2 The learned Senior Counsel further contended that when the tender document does not stipulate that an agreement with the vendor of the eggs should be submitted along with the tender document and the agreement furnished by the petitioner was only an additional document to establish its bona fides to supply eggs punctually and promptly, the second respondent ought not to have rejected the petitioner's bid on the ground that the agreement of the petitioner with vendors of the eggs was only for a period from 01.05.2016 to 30.04.2019 and it falls short of three months for the tender period i.e., 31.07.2019. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that the petitioner has not filed an appeal within 10 days from the date of rejection of its bid, in terms of Section 11 of the Act, as the subsequent tender notification was floated on 20.08.2018; the statutory period permitting an appeal to be filed within a period of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in 24 days is procedural in nature, whereas the right to file an appeal is substantive in nature; and the substantive right of the petitioner cannot be denied for mere procedural infraction, especially when the respondents will not be prejudiced in any manner. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel sought to allow the writ petitions.
Madras High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. vs Punjab And Sind Bank on 14 June, 2019

17. On behalf of the petitioner reliance was also placed on the verdict of this Court in Allied Integrated Society (Regd.) and Ors. Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) 2018 SCC Online Del 9472 and on the verdict of this Court in Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation 2005 (80) DRJ 542 (DB) with specific reference to para 6 of the said verdict which reads to the effect:
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Malhotra - Full Document

Ekta Shakti Foundation And Anr vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation on 26 July, 2022

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5912/2018, dated 06.06.2018, titled Allied Integrated Society & Ors. Vs. The State (GNCT of Delhi),wherein this Court has quashed the eligibility condition of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH W.P.(C) 821/2020 Page 2 of 6 Signing Date:02.08.2022 12:31:52 possessing an average annual turnover of Rs.03 crores for the preceding three years.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

M/S Vishal Pharma vs . State Of Meghalaya on 13 December, 2018

Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, GA The grievance projected by the petitioner is that average annual turnover of not less than Rs. 50 crores per annum during the last three consecutive years as incorporated in the notice inviting tender is grossly arbitrary and appears to have been incorporated with some design so as to exclude participation of the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner satisfies all the conditions of the tender notice but not for the annual turnover of Rs. 50 crores. Supporting his submission that the average annual turnover has been arbitrarily fixed, has placed reliance on two judgments, (i) rendered by Orissa High Court in WP(C) No. 18496 of 2009 decided on 20.12.2010 titled, Manufacturers Association & Anr. v. State of Orissa & Ors. and (ii) rendered by Delhi High Court titled, Allied Integrated Society (Regd.) & Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) in WP(C) No. 5912 of 2018 & CM Appl. 23033-23034 of 2018 decided on 06.06.2018.
Meghalaya High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - M Mir - Full Document
1