Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 389 (2.01 seconds)
Documents citing Poddar Steel Corporation vs Ganesh Engineering Works And Others on 6 May, 1991

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

A similar distinction was adverted to more recently in Bakshi Security and Personnel Services (P) Ltd. v. Devkishan Computed (P) Ltd. [Bakshi Security and Personnel Services (P) Ltd. v. Devkishan Computed (P) Ltd., (2016) 8 SCC 446 : (2016) 7 Scale 425] through a reference made to Poddar Steel [Poddar Steel Corpn. v. Ganesh Engg. Works, (1991) 3 SCC 273] .
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S Yadav - Full Document

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

In the circumstances the relevant condition in the advertisement would not fall in the first category of cases as dealt with by this Court in Poddar Steel Corporation (supra). The authorities could therefore https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 20/45 validly deviate from and not insist upon strict literal compliance. The discretion so exercised by the authorities could not have therefore been faulted. Thus, the assessment made by the High Court that the condition in question was an essential condition for non-compliance of which, the bid furnished by the appellant was required to be rejected, in our view was not correct."
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - B Pugalendhi - Full Document

M/S.Itd Cementation India Limited vs Union Of India & Anr on 8 August, 2017

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also attempted to convince this Court that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Central Coalfields Ltd. & Anr. vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium & Ors., (supra) cannot be relied as (28 of 28) [CW-4891/2017] the same ought to be referred to the Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court as the earlier decision of that Court rendered in Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Works & Ors. (supra) was approved in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India (supra), which is delivered by a Larger Bench.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - V Bishnoi - Full Document

National High Speed Rail Corporation ... vs Montecarlo Limited on 31 January, 2022

Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. Ganesh 13 Engineering Works and Others, (1991) 3 SCC 273. It is submitted that when the final decision-making authority is under the jurisdictional control of a governmental body in India, the State may adopt a position wherein it allows tender participant to participate in case there is substantial compliance. However, the same may not be a position with contracts issued for implementing foreign funded infrastructural projects as the same would amount to changing the terms on which the investment is agreed to be made. It is submitted that in the present case as such, the appellant has complied with and/or followed the conditions as envisaged by the foreign funding party and there cannot be any deviation from the terms and conditions of the NIT by the appellant; as such which can be said to be a facilitating party and/or implementing agency only. It is submitted that in the present case, as one of the essential conditions of signing the forms in indelible ink has not been complied with, therefore, a conscious decision was taken by the investor – JICA and the consultant – JICC, which has been applied by the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 91 - M R Shah - Full Document

M/S.Hero Ecotech Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Backward Classes on 22 March, 2018

28.The other decision relied on by the petitioner reported in AIR 1991 SC 1579, Podar Steel Corporation vs Ganesh Engineering Works and also the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in MANU/TN/3500/2016, Renaatus Projects Private Limited vs The Tamilnadu Police Housing Corporation Ltd., will not help the petitioner in any manner, since the facts and circumstances of the present case would show that technical specific requirements contemplated in the tender document are certainly showing conditions of eligibility and they are neither ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by the condition.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - K R Baabu - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next