Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.75 seconds)

M/S. Meem Agro Food Private Limited, vs The State Of Telangana, on 3 October, 2024

In Din Bandhu Dass v. Delhi Technological University, the High Court of Delhi observed that the tender has to be examined in the light of Rule 173 of General Financial Rules, 2017. The said Rule stipulates that there is no bar in accepting a tender even when there is only one bidder. In the present case on hand, the tender notification was issued in two newspapers and tender has also been notified in e-procurement site and certain objections were raised by respondent authorities with regard to six bidders. It is pertinent to note that issuance of tender notification itself signifies that respondent authority do not want to favour any bidder. In the present case, tenders were called for the first time after the expiry of lease period. In view of the same, the judgment relied on by the petitioner do not come to the aide of the petitioner owing to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also to be noted that RFP merely invites an offer and the petitioner having signed price bid and letter, as per Appendix C1 is bound by all the terms and condition of RFP document.
Telangana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Star Light vs The State Of Telangana on 3 October, 2024

In Din Bandhu Dass v. Delhi Technological University, the High Court of Delhi observed that the tender has to be examined in the light of Rule 173 of General Financial Rules, 2017. The said Rule stipulates that there is no bar in accepting a tender even when there is only one bidder. In the present case on hand, the tender notification was issued in two newspapers and tender has also been notified in e-procurement site and certain objections were raised by respondent authorities with regard to six bidders. It is pertinent to note that issuance of tender notification itself signifies that respondent authority do not want to favour any bidder. In the present case, tenders were called for the first time after the expiry of lease period. In view of the same, the judgment relied on by the petitioner do not come to the aide of the petitioner owing to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also to be noted that RFP merely invites an offer and the petitioner having signed price bid and letter, as per Appendix C1 is bound by all the terms and condition of RFP document.
Telangana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Asian Foods, vs The State Of Telangana, on 3 October, 2024

In Din Bandhu Dass v. Delhi Technological University, the High Court of Delhi observed that the tender has to be examined in the light of Rule 173 of General Financial Rules, 2017. The said Rule stipulates that there is no bar in accepting a tender even when there is only one bidder. In the present case on hand, the tender notification was issued in two newspapers and tender has also been notified in e-procurement site and certain objections were raised by respondent authorities with regard to six bidders. It is pertinent to note that issuance of tender notification itself signifies that respondent authority do not want to favour any bidder. In the present case, tenders were called for the first time after the expiry of lease period. In view of the same, the judgment relied on by the petitioner do not come to the aide of the petitioner owing to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also to be noted that RFP merely invites an offer and the petitioner having signed price bid and letter, as per Appendix C1 is bound by all the terms and condition of RFP document.
Telangana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Asian Foods vs The State Of Telangana on 3 October, 2024

In Din Bandhu Dass v. Delhi Technological University, the High Court of Delhi observed that the tender has to be examined in the light of Rule 173 of General Financial Rules, 2017. The said Rule stipulates that there is no bar in accepting a tender even when there is only one bidder. In the present case on hand, the tender notification was issued in two newspapers and tender has also been notified in e-procurement site and certain objections were raised by respondent authorities with regard to six bidders. It is pertinent to note that issuance of tender notification itself signifies that respondent authority do not want to favour any bidder. In the present case, tenders were called for the first time after the expiry of lease period. In view of the same, the judgment relied on by the petitioner do not come to the aide of the petitioner owing to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also to be noted that RFP merely invites an offer and the petitioner having signed price bid and letter, as per Appendix C1 is bound by all the terms and condition of RFP document.
Telangana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohammed Saleem vs The State Of Telangana on 3 October, 2024

In Din Bandhu Dass v. Delhi Technological University, the High Court of Delhi observed that the tender has to be examined in the light of Rule 173 of General Financial Rules, 2017. The said Rule stipulates that there is no bar in accepting a tender even when there is only one bidder. In the present case on hand, the tender notification was issued in two newspapers and tender has also been notified in e-procurement site and certain objections were raised by respondent authorities with regard to six bidders. It is pertinent to note that issuance of tender notification itself signifies that respondent authority do not want to favour any bidder. In the present case, tenders were called for the first time after the expiry of lease period. In view of the same, the judgment relied on by the petitioner do not come to the aide of the petitioner owing to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also to be noted that RFP merely invites an offer and the petitioner having signed price bid and letter, as per Appendix C1 is bound by all the terms and condition of RFP document.
Telangana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Alhand Agro Food Products Private ... vs The State Of Telangana on 3 October, 2024

In Din Bandhu Dass v. Delhi Technological University, the High Court of Delhi observed that the tender has to be examined in the light of Rule 173 of General Financial Rules, 2017. The said Rule stipulates that there is no bar in accepting a tender even when there is only one bidder. In the present case on hand, the tender notification was issued in two newspapers and tender has also been notified in e-procurement site and certain objections were raised by respondent authorities with regard to six bidders. It is pertinent to note that issuance of tender notification itself signifies that respondent authority do not want to favour any bidder. In the present case, tenders were called for the first time after the expiry of lease period. In view of the same, the judgment relied on by the petitioner do not come to the aide of the petitioner owing to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also to be noted that RFP merely invites an offer and the petitioner having signed price bid and letter, as per Appendix C1 is bound by all the terms and condition of RFP document.
Telangana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aldua Food Processing Private Limited vs The State Of Telangana on 3 October, 2024

In Din Bandhu Dass v. Delhi Technological University, the High Court of Delhi observed that the tender has to be examined in the light of Rule 173 of General Financial Rules, 2017. The said Rule stipulates that there is no bar in accepting a tender even when there is only one bidder. In the present case on hand, the tender notification was issued in two newspapers and tender has also been notified in e-procurement site and certain objections were raised by respondent authorities with regard to six bidders. It is pertinent to note that issuance of tender notification itself signifies that respondent authority do not want to favour any bidder. In the present case, tenders were called for the first time after the expiry of lease period. In view of the same, the judgment relied on by the petitioner do not come to the aide of the petitioner owing to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also to be noted that RFP merely invites an offer and the petitioner having signed price bid and letter, as per Appendix C1 is bound by all the terms and condition of RFP document.
Telangana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1