Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 963 (2.86 seconds)
Documents citing Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998

Gorakh Prasad & Ors vs The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors on 12 September, 2017

The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has been settled by the decision of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union v. Union of India, CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., Tata Cellular v. Union of India, Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra and Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process the court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution Patna High Court CWJC No.476 of 2017 dt.12/09/2017 73/84 and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should intervene." (Emphasis supplied)
Patna High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Kishan Gopal Atal & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 23 September, 2008

In M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Anr. Vs. M/s S. Palaniappan (supra) while relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Others (supra), a Division Bench of Madras High Court held that tender terms are contractual and it is the 37 privilege of the Government which invites its tenders and Courts did not have jurisdiction to judge as to how the tender terms would have to be framed. In that case the transportation of petroleum products of the Corporation is effected through the tank-lorries not only owned by the dealers but also by independent transporters and the Corporation has decided to explore new technique processes adopted by global companies and engaged the services of the consultants and on the basis of the detailed study, the terms and conditions of the tender were settled and the allegation therein that the Corporation intended to favour only few big fleet operators was found to be baseless and it was held that in arriving at a commercial decision, considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. It is open for the Corporation to choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It is free to fix its own terms of invitation to tender and it is not permissible for this Court to sit in appeal over the decision of the Corporation and on these premises, similarly writ petition filed by private lorries owners for transportation of petroleum products challenging the NIT came to be dismissed.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 26 - Cited by 4 - H R Panwar - Full Document

Bihar Petroleum Dealers Association & ... vs The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors on 12 September, 2017

The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has been settled by the decision of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union v. Union of India, CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., Tata Cellular v. Union of India, Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra and Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process the court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution Patna High Court CWJC No.476 of 2017 dt.12/09/2017 73/84 and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should intervene." (Emphasis supplied)
Patna High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

M/S.Travel News Services (India) ... vs Airports Authority Of India (Southern ... on 11 August, 2017

12. As regards the merits of Cambatta's proposal, it was contended by Mr. Andhyarujina that all the three offers of Cambatta were superior in terms of parameters laid down by CIAL than Air India's offer. He submitted that even after CIAL unilaterally raised the license fee of Air India from 17 per cent to 20 per cent in the 10th year to match Cambatta's offer and imposed a condition that Air India would not sub-contract, it did not become comparable with the offer of Cambatta as Air India did not offer to pay 2 per cent bonus in license fee. It was also submitted that Air India's representation that it would be able to bring more traffic was illusory and for that reason also Air India's proposal cannot be regarded as superior or even comparable with the proposal of Cambatta. We do not think that CIAL did any wrong in taking into consideration the fact that Air India is an airline and being a national carrier would be in a position to bring more traffic of Air India and other domestic lines if it was awarded the contract. As regards the merits of the rival offers, we do not think it proper to look at only the financial aspect and hold that CIAL did not accept Cambatta's offer, even though it was better, because it wanted to favour Air India or that it had acted under the influence of Air India and the Ministry of Civil Aviation. In a commercial transaction of a complex nature what may appear to be better, on the face of it, may not be considered so when an overall view is taken. In such matters the Court cannot substitute it's decision for the decision of the party awarding the contract. On the basis of the material placed on record we find that CIAL bona fide believed that involving a public sector undertaking and a national carrier would, in the long run, prove to be more beneficial to CIAL. For all these reasons it is not possible to agree with the finding of the High Court that CIAL had acted arbitrarily and unreasonably and was also influenced by extraneous considerations during its decision making process.
Madras High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 1 - M Duraiswamy - Full Document

Bihar Petroleum Dealers Association & ... vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors on 12 September, 2017

The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has been settled by the decision of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union v. Union of India, CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., Tata Cellular v. Union of India, Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra and Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process the court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution Patna High Court CWJC No.476 of 2017 dt.12/09/2017 73/84 and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should intervene." (Emphasis supplied)
Patna High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Three Star Poultry Farm vs The Governmnent Of Tamil Nadu on 25 April, 2014

(b) In (1999) 1 SCC 492 (RAUNAQ INTERNATIONAL LTD. V. I.V.R. CONSTRUCTION LTD.), the Supreme Court reiterated the said principle and held that the writ Court would not be justified in interfering with the commercial transaction in which the State is one of the parties to the same except where there is substantial public interest involved and in cases where the transaction is mala fide.
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maa Chandi Stone Crushing vs The Chief Engineer (Con) - I, East Coast ... on 7 January, 2005

14. Applying the aforesaid tests laid down by the Apex Court regarding interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters relating to award of contracts, we find that in this case the tender committee has taken a view that the petitioner has not satisfactorily completed supply of minimum 20,000 cum. of ballast in one agreement under any Government or Semi Government Organization during last five years and was therefore not eligible to participate in the tender in accordance with Clause 6.1 of the tender notice. Such a view though rigid and strict cannot be held to be a totally mala fide, arbitrary or irrational view considering the fact that the petitioner had actually supplied 19,961.47 cum. of ballast under Agreement No. 50 dated 18.6.2001 with the Railways. Further although the petitioner tendered Rs. 2,81,94,453/- for the work, the work has been awarded to Opp. Party No. 4 at Rs. 2,45,50,272/-. Pursuant to the said award of the contract, Opp. Party No. 4 has also gone ahead and has made substantial investment by way of mobilization of men and machinery and installation of crusher units. Any interference at this stage with the award or the contract in favour of Opp. Party No. 4 may result in delay in execution of the Tomka-Banspani Rail Link Project and also escalation of cost which may require fresh sanction of an unbudgeted expenditure. For all these reasons, even if we take a view different than that of the tender committee and hold that the petitioner satisfied the eligibility criteria as prescribed in Clause 6.1 of the tender notice for the work in question, we cannot not interfere in the award of the contract in favour of the Opp. Party No. 4 because we cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the tender committee while exercising the power of judicial review and we should not interfere with the award of the contract in favour of the Opp. Party No. 4 because such interference will affect public interest and may lead to escalation of costs and delay in execution of an important Railway project.
Orissa High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Unity Infraprojects Ltd Thr Its ... vs Building Construction on 19 November, 2015

In the case of Raunaq International Ltd (supra), certain guidelines were laid down in arriving at a commercial decision. It also considered the elements of public interest e.g. The goods or services which are being commissioned could be for a public purpose, the public would be directly interested in timely fulfillment of the contract so that services become available to the public expeditiously etc.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R Mukhopadhyay - Full Document

P.L. Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 28 December, 2020

respondent's argument that there is a certain public interest at stake whenever the public exchequer is involved. There are various factors in play, in addition to mere bidding price, like technical ability and timely completion which must be kept in mind. And adopting such interpretation would permanently blur the line between contractual disputes involving the State and those affecting public law. This has aptly been highlighted in Raunaq International Ltd. v. IVR Construction Ltd. [(1999) 1 SCC 492] "11. When a writ petition is filed in the High Court challenging the award of a contract by a public authority or the State, the court must be satisfied that there is some element of public interest involved in entertaining such a petition. If, for example, the dispute is purely between two tenderers, the court must be r very careful to see if there is any element of public interest involved in the litigation. A mere difference in the prices offered by the two tenderers may or may not be decisive in deciding whether any public interest is involved in intervening in such a commercial transaction. It is important to bear in mind that by court intervention, the proposed project may be considerably delayed thus escalating the cost far more than any saving which the court would ultimately effect in public money by deciding the dispute in favour of one tenderer or the other tenderer. Therefore, unless the court is satisfied that there is a substantial amount of public interest, or the transaction is entered into mala fide, the court should not intervene under Article 226 in disputes between two rival tenderers."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next