Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Kanhaiyalal Agarwal And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 February, 2002

M/S.Trigyn Technologies Limited 27 vs The Commissioner on 29 January, 2021

(v) The Apex Court once again in the case of Kanhaiyalal Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors. [(2002) 6 SCC 315 held that if the bid submitted by the bidder substantially complies with the purport and object for which the essential conditions were laid down in the tender document, such bid should not be rejected or disqualified for non-compliance/ a deviation with regard to a non-essential and / or ancillary condition.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - B Pugalendhi - Full Document

M/S Rhetoric Technologies Pvt. Ltd ... vs State Of U.P. ... on 30 January, 2023

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in Kanhaiyalal Agarwal Vs. Union of India and others AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2766 (paragraph 6), wherein the Supreme Court has observed that when an essential condition of tender is not complied with, it is open to the person inviting tender to reject the same. Whether a condition is essential or collateral could be ascertained by reference to consequence of non-compliance thereto.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Rosmerta Technologies Ltd vs State Of Odisha on 18 June, 2024

In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the Supreme Court‟s decisions in cases of Central Coalfields Limited and another v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622 (paragraphs-41, 42, 43, 47, 48); Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Another reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818 (paragraphs-13, 14 & 15); Agmatel India Private Limited v. Resoursys Telecom and Others, reported in (2022) 5 SCC 362 (paragraphs-28 to 31.2); N.G. Projects Limited v. Vinod Kumar Jain and others, reported in(2022) 6 SCC 127 (paragraphs-21, 22, 23 & 26); Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489; Tata Cellular v. Union of India reported in(1994) 6 SCC 651 (paragraph 94); G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka reported in(1990) 2 SCC 488 (Paragraph 66); M/s. Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Metcalfe and Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2005) 6 SCC 138; Jagdish Mandal v. State of Odisha reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 and Kanheylal Agarwal v. Union of India reported in 2002 (6) SCC 315 (Paragraph-6).
Orissa High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - M S Raman - Full Document

M/S Shyam Construction Company vs State Of Chhattisgarh 123 ... on 26 June, 2019

6. In the NIT floated by Respondents No.1 to 4 on 07.11.2017, one of the terms and conditions No. 2 which was to be complied with by the tenderers including the Petitioner was not complied with. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that one of the essential conditions that was to be fulfilled by the tenderer while submitting the tender is submission of the latest income tax clearance certificate along with the true copy of the Pan Card, which admittedly, the Petitioner did not submit, which is apparent from 3 the list of tenderers submitted by the Petitioner and available at page 19 of the paper book, in which Petitioner stands at Sr.No.34 and he has been declared as ineligible. The Supreme Court in the matter of Kanhaiyalal Agrawal vs. Union of India {(2002) 6 SCC 315} following its earlier judgment in the matter of G.J. Fernandez vs. State of Karnataka (AIR 1990 SC 958) has held that when an essential condition of tender is not complied with, it is open to the person, inviting tender to reject the same. Whether a condition is essential or collateral could be ascertained by reference to consequence of non-compliance thereto. If non-fulfilment of requirement results in rejection of the tender, then it would be essential part of the tender, otherwise it is only a collateral term. In the instant case, the submission of latest income tax clearance certificate along with a copy of Pancard was one of the essential conditions to be complied with looking to the object sought to be achieved, which the Petitioner failed to submit. Not only the Petitioner but also eleven other tenderers were declared ineligible on account of non- submission of said certificate, as such the action of Respondent is neither arbitrary nor illegal.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Mahendra Singh Dangi vs National Highway Authority Of India on 16 September, 2021

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that while on one hand the competent authority has not decided the application (Annexure-P/15) filed by the petitioners before him on 7.4.2021 and on the other hand, the petitioners apprehend that the amount of the compensation may be disbursed to the respondents No. 3 to 5. The prayer is therefore made that the competent authority i.e. respondent No.2 be directed to make a reference under Section Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 to the appropriate Civil Court and pending decision on such reference, the amount of compensation may not be disbursed to any party. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Kanhaiyalal Patel and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., [2008 (3) MPLJ 48] and in Ramswaroop and Ors. Vs. National Highway Authority of India, Narsinghpur and Ors, [2016 (2) MPLJ 224].
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - M Rafiq - Full Document
1