Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)
Kunjukrishnan vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 2 December, 1982 cites

State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. vs Firm Gobardhan Dass Kailash Nath on 7 March, 1973

In State of M.P. v. Firm G. Dass (AIR 1973 SC 1164) the position was this: Where in response to notice issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests, certain firm offered their tenders for purchase of certain forest products and their tenders being highest were accepted for and on behalf of the Chief Conservator, but the firm failed to make, on the spot, the initial deposit of 26 per cent of the purchase price as offered, which in view of the notice was condition precedent for the acceptance of the tender, in the absence of any power in the Chief Conservator to waive such conditions, the purported acceptance was not a valid one and there was no concluded contract between the firm and the Chief Conservator.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 279 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Union Of India vs A.L. Rallia Ram on 19 April, 1963

10. Though the words "expressed" and "executed" in Article 299 (1) might suggest that it should be by a deed or by a formal written document a contract had to be entered into on behalf of the President or the Governor, a binding contract by tender and acceptance could also come into existence if the acceptance was by a person duly authorised in that behalf by the President of India or the Governor of the State concerned. Equally so, even if a contract by a formal deed is executed on behalf of the President or the Governor, if it is executed by a person who is not authorised by the President or the Governor, such contract would not be binding; it is absolutely void. This position has been made clear by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram (AIR 1963 SC 1685) while construing the provisions of Section 175 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and later in Union of India v. N.K. Private Ltd. (AIR 1972 SC 915) interpreting the scope of Article 299 (1) of the Constitution In the latter case acceptance by the Secretary of the Railway Board an offer made by a company for purchases of materials was found to be not in terms of a contract expressed or executed in the name of the President, inasmuch as the only authorised person to enter into contract on behalf of the President was the Director of Railway Stores, so far as the Railway was concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 404 - J C Shah - Full Document

Union Of India & Others vs N.K. Private Limited & Another on 11 February, 1972

10. Though the words "expressed" and "executed" in Article 299 (1) might suggest that it should be by a deed or by a formal written document a contract had to be entered into on behalf of the President or the Governor, a binding contract by tender and acceptance could also come into existence if the acceptance was by a person duly authorised in that behalf by the President of India or the Governor of the State concerned. Equally so, even if a contract by a formal deed is executed on behalf of the President or the Governor, if it is executed by a person who is not authorised by the President or the Governor, such contract would not be binding; it is absolutely void. This position has been made clear by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram (AIR 1963 SC 1685) while construing the provisions of Section 175 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and later in Union of India v. N.K. Private Ltd. (AIR 1972 SC 915) interpreting the scope of Article 299 (1) of the Constitution In the latter case acceptance by the Secretary of the Railway Board an offer made by a company for purchases of materials was found to be not in terms of a contract expressed or executed in the name of the President, inasmuch as the only authorised person to enter into contract on behalf of the President was the Director of Railway Stores, so far as the Railway was concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 43 - P J Reddy - Full Document

K. P. Chowdhary vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 15 March, 1966

In K.P. Chowdhry's case (AIR 1967 SC 203) what the Supreme Court laid down was that Article 299 (1) of the Constitution does not contemplate an implied contract between the Government and any other person. In that view it was held that the Government was not entitled by resorting to Section 155 (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code to realise the deficiency between the original auction bid amount and the amount fetched in reauction where, before the bid was accepted, the contract was cancelled due to the failure on the part of the bidder to pay part consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 65 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Syed Israr Masood, Forest Contractor, ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 October, 1981

In Syed Israr Masood's case (AIR 1981 SC 2010(2)) in an auction sale of certain forest coupes the details regarding the quantity and quality of timber available for cutting were announced by the Range Officers and it was on the basis of the said information that the participants in the auction were invited to bid. Subsequent to auction substantial areas in the concerned coupes were declared to ba 'reserved'. Notwithstanding that there was a condition in the sale notice that no claim for compensation would lie against the State Government if details were found to be incorrect, it was held that in a suit for recovery of first instalment of the sale price together with damages, it was open to the plaintiff to repudiate the contract and claim a refund of the first instalment of the sale price, as the very foundation of the contract was substantially altered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - V B Eradi - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Klshori Lal Minocha on 21 December, 1979

State of U. P. v. Kishori Lal (AIR 1980 SC 680) was a case where in an auction sale the highest bidder was required to deposit the prescribed minimum. On failure of the highest bidder to do so, there was re-auction fetching smaller amount than the amount offered by the earlier auction purchaser. The State filed a suit against the highest bidder in the previous occasion for the loss suffered by it, which was found to be not maintainable in view of the fact that the bid offered was not sanctioned by the Excise Commissioner as required under Rule 357 (2) of the U. P. Excise Manual; and it was held that there was no concluded contract between the State and the auction purchaser to hold him liable for breach of contract. We do not think that any of the decisions cited above by the appellant-plaintiff would apply to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 34 - A C Gupta - Full Document
1