Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 194 (2.32 seconds)
Documents citing Rashmi Metaliks Limited And Another vs The Kolkata Metropolitan Development ... on 2 July, 2013

Sanuraga Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 August, 2020

46. It is true that in Poddar Steel [Poddar Steel Corpn. v. Ganesh Engg. Works, (1991) 3 SCC 273] and in Rashmi Metaliks [Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, (2013) 10 SCC 95 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 650 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 43 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 858] a distinction has been drawn by this Court between essential and ancillary and subsidiary conditions in the bid documents.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S Yadav - Full Document

M/S Hytronics Enterprises vs Uunion Of India on 10 October, 2023

10. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances of the case and also the contents of the letter dated 21.08.2023 issued by the State Bank of India, Secunderabad (referred to and extracted above), and duly considering the averments made at para 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that technical bid is not yet finalized as on date and duly taking into consideration the 9 WP_25868_2023 SN,J view taken by the Apex Court in judgment dated 11.09.2013 reported in (2013) 10 SCC page 95 in Rashmi Metaliks Limited and another v Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and others, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.08.2023 addressed to the respondent Authority clarifying Bid clarification with regard to BG Ref No.050-5523-bg-000- 2350 dated 04.08.2023 as effective from 12.07.2023 to 30.04.2025 drawn from SBI, Commercial Branch, Secunderabad within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order in accordance to law, duly taking into consideration the view taken by the Apex Court in its judgment dated 11.09.2013 reported in (2013) 10 SCC page 95 in Rashmi Metaliks Limited and another v Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and others and duly understanding the fact that respondent Nos.2 and 3, should have sufficient reason for disregarding petitioner's bid which admittedly as borne on record does not exist in the present case, and pass appropriate reasoned order, duly communicating the decision to the petitioner. Until a decision is taken by respondent Nos.2 and 3, upon the representation dated 30.08.2023 of the petitioner within the time period 10 WP_25868_2023 SN,J stipulated by this Court, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the subject issue. It is also observed that if the respondent authorities need any clarification or any further documents, they are at liberty to issue notice to the petitioner and secure the same in deciding the subject issue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Telangana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Nanda - Full Document

Gupta Freight Carrier, A Property ... vs The Food Corporation Of India, Thr. Its ... on 12 October, 2018

10. A perusal of judgment in the case of Rashmi Metaliks Limited & Anr. vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors., (supra) shows that there the term was requiring copy of acknowledgment of the latest Income Tax return and provisional tax return. The Hon'ble Apex Court has evaluated this argument and found that the appellant before it was disqualified for not submitting the latest Income Tax return along with the bid. In paragraph 18, the Hon'ble Apex Court points out when Income Tax return would have assumed the character of an essential term. It finds that if one of the qualification norms was either the gross income or the net income, filing of income tax return could have been seen as an essential condition. As that was not the situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court holds that it was only a collateral condition.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - M G Giratkar - Full Document

P.A.Musthafa vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2014

In view of the above, the Competent Authority has decided to cancel and re-tender the licence for operating baggage wrapping machine at the International Terminal at Trivandrum Airport." On a perusal of Ext.P4 communication, impliedly it could be said that it contains two decisions taken by the AAI. The first is the decision to reject the tender of the appellant on the ground of non- compliance with a procedural condition of the NIT. This decision of the AAI was found to be illegal by the learned Single Judge. The other decision contained in Ext.P4 is the dec0ision to cancel the tender proceedings itself in view of the decision to reject the tender of the appellant. This latter decision is distinct and different from the former and in turn, appears to be based on a policy decision taken by AAI pursuant to the recommendations of the RCAC. We have thought it fit to clarify this aspect only because the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that the non-citing of the reasons for cancellation of the tender proceedings in Ext.P4 communication would vitiate the decision of W.A.No.439/2014 14 AAI on the principles enunciated in Mohinder Singh Gill's case (supra) which principle has been adverted in the context of a contractual matter as well in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Rashmi Metaliks Limited and Another v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Others ((2013) 10 SCC 95). It appears, as contended by the respondent, that on 08.05.2013 a decision [Ext.R3(c)] was taken by the RCAC to scrap the tender process, in view of what is stated in Ext.P4. However, as is apparent from the decision itself, it was also in view of the technical observations relating to the machine that they were evaluating.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - A K Nambiar - Full Document

Bharati Rathore vs Union Of India And Anr. on 28 May, 2021

Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, MAT No. 1031 of 2013, decided on 11-7-2013 (Cal)] is indubitably a cryptic one and does not contain the reasons on which the decision is predicated. Since reasons are not contained in the impugned judgment [Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, MAT No. 1031 of 2013, decided on 11-7-2013 (Cal)] itself, it must be set aside on the short ground that a party cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in its earlier decision.‖ (Emphasis supplied)
Delhi High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - J R Midha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next