Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)
Ganesh Movers & Logistics (P) Ltd vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors on 20 December, 2021 cites

Krishna Bahadur vs M/S Purna Theatre & Ors on 25 August, 2004

Secunderabad & Ors. reported in 2007 SCC OnLine AP 29 at Paragraph 10 thereof, Reliance Energy Limited & Anr. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited & Ors. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 1 at Paragraphs 38 and 39, Krishna Bahadur Vs. Purna Theatre & Ors. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 229 at Paragraph 10 thereof, Vice Chairman & Managing Director, CIDCM Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Shishir Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1141 at Paragraph 56 and IRCTC Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Doshion Veolia Water Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2010) 13 SCC 364 at Paragraph 37 thereof.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 158 - S B Sinha - Full Document

The Vice Chairman And Managing ... vs Shishir Realty Pvt Ltd . on 29 November, 2021

Secunderabad & Ors. reported in 2007 SCC OnLine AP 29 at Paragraph 10 thereof, Reliance Energy Limited & Anr. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited & Ors. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 1 at Paragraphs 38 and 39, Krishna Bahadur Vs. Purna Theatre & Ors. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 229 at Paragraph 10 thereof, Vice Chairman & Managing Director, CIDCM Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Shishir Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1141 at Paragraph 56 and IRCTC Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Doshion Veolia Water Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2010) 13 SCC 364 at Paragraph 37 thereof.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 31 - N V Ramana - Full Document

The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019

16. It is submitted that the fulfilment or otherwise of technical qualifications in a tendering process must be left to the exclusive discretion of the employer. A writ Court should not impose its own view on the employer where two views are possible. It is argued that there is no flaw or infirmity pointed out by the petitioner in the decision making process. The scope of enquiry under Article 226 is restricted only to such decision making process. Hence the decision of the IOC to reject the petitioner's bid should not be interfered with. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. UOI & Anr. reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489 at Paragraph 20 thereof and Afcons Infrastructure Limited Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Anr. reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818 at Paragraphs 13 and 15 thereof. Mr. Kar also tried to distinguish the judgments cited by Mr. Bandyopadhyay. It is argued that the ratio in the decisions cited have no manner of the application in the facts of the instant case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 312 - D Gupta - Full Document

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr on 15 September, 2016

16. It is submitted that the fulfilment or otherwise of technical qualifications in a tendering process must be left to the exclusive discretion of the employer. A writ Court should not impose its own view on the employer where two views are possible. It is argued that there is no flaw or infirmity pointed out by the petitioner in the decision making process. The scope of enquiry under Article 226 is restricted only to such decision making process. Hence the decision of the IOC to reject the petitioner's bid should not be interfered with. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. UOI & Anr. reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489 at Paragraph 20 thereof and Afcons Infrastructure Limited Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Anr. reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818 at Paragraphs 13 and 15 thereof. Mr. Kar also tried to distinguish the judgments cited by Mr. Bandyopadhyay. It is argued that the ratio in the decisions cited have no manner of the application in the facts of the instant case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 560 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Reliance Airports Developers P. Ltd. vs Airports Authority Of India And Ors. on 21 April, 2006

In Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India [(2006) 10 SCC 1] the Division Bench of this Court has held that in matters of judicial review the basic test is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision-making process and not in the decision itself. This means that the decision- maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and he must give effect to it otherwise it may result in illegality. The principle of "judicial review" cannot be denied even in contractual matters or matters in which the Government exercises its contractual powers, but judicial review is intended to prevent arbitrariness and it must be exercised in larger public interest. Expression of different views and opinions in exercise of contractual powers may be there, however, such difference of opinion must be based on specified norms. Those norms may be legal norms or accounting norms. As long as the norms are clear and properly understood by the decision-maker and the bidders and other stakeholders, uncertainty and thereby breach of the rule of law will not arise. The grounds upon which administrative action is subjected to control by judicial review are classifiable broadly under three heads, namely, illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. In the said judgment it has been held that all errors of law are jurisdictional errors. One of the important principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment is that whenever a norm/benchmark is prescribed in the tender process in order to provide certainty that norm/standard should be clear. As stated above "certainty" is an important aspect of the rule of law. In Reliance Airport Developers [(2006) 10 SCC 1] the scoring system formed part of the evaluation process. The object of that system was to provide identification of factors, allocation of marks of each of the said factors and giving of marks at different stages. Objectivity was thus provided."
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 123 - T S Thakur - Full Document

West Bengal State Electricity Board vs Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. & Ors on 15 January, 2001

"37. These observations made by this Court in W.B. SEB v. Patel Engg. Co. Ltd. [(2001) 2 SCC 451] rather come to the aid of Ion Exchange in this case. Since Irctc did not clearly stipulate in the instructions to bidders or in the special terms and conditions or in the prescribed price schedule or in any other part of the tender documents that a tenderer will not offer any discount on the prices quoted by him and if any such discount is offered the tender will be rejected, the offer of discount on the price made by Ion Exchange cannot be treated to be in breach of the essential terms or conditions of the tender documents. To hold that the State or its agencies can reject a tender for breach of a term or condition in the tender document, which is not explicit in the tender documents, is to give room to the State or its agencies to arbitrarily reject tenders even where the clear terms or conditions of the tender documents are complied with."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 342 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Permendar Pal Singh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors on 22 July, 2021

18. WPA 19842 of 2021 (M/s. Ajay Pal Singh Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors.) has been filed in respect of the same NIT. The facts are similar. The petitioner's bid was also similarly rejected as the Ganesh bid. The only difference is that the technical queries addressed to the writ petitioner herein were that the partnership deed of the petitioner dated 3 rd December, 2014 is not registered. The names of all partners have not been mentioned in the tender forms. The compliance certificate of laws of other countries sharing the land border of India has not been furnished. The petitioner did furnish the documents and it was communicated that he was also technically qualified. He was allowed to participate in the financial part of the bid. All 15 TTs of the petitioner were, however, disqualified after participating in the financial bid for not satisfying the PQC. The registration document was deemed insufficient since no Smart Card was produced. The IOC relied upon the endorsement at the bottom of the produced registration certificate which is as follows:-
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - R Mantha - Full Document
1