Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.29 seconds)
M/S Agrawal Global Infratech Private ... vs Ramiya-Hs (Jv) Through Its Authorized ... on 7 October, 2021 cites

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

v. Afcons Infrastructure Limited versus Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and another: [(2016) 16 SCC 818] A perusal of the judgment cited by the learned Advocate General shows that the line of decisions cited in the case of Montecarlo Limited (supra) enunciate the principle of law that in a contract of commercial nature, the courts should refrain from exercising the powers of judicial review even if there is a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer leaving it to the employer of the project 24 having authored the tender documents to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its document, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation in the application of the terms of the tender conditions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 560 - M B Lokur - Full Document

B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995

(3) SCR 105] and also in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi versus Union of India and others [(1995) 6 SCC 749] as also in the case of Shangrila Food Products Ltd And Another versus Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another [(1996) 5 SCC 54]. Since the award of work in favour of the private Respondent M/s Agarwal Global Infratech Pvt. Ltd / appellant herein was found to be flawed on grounds of arbitrariness in matters of qualification in technical bid, the consequential action to award the work in its favour could not have been upheld since it would amount to allowing the appellant M/s Agarwal Global Infratech Pvt. Ltd to enjoy the fruits of a wrong decision. The course 28 adopted by the learned single Judge to direct the Respondent State to call for a fresh tender for award of the work in such circumstances, does not call for any interference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 2256 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Mangt. Of Narendra & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Workmen Of Narendra & Co on 4 January, 2016

29. Having regard to the discussions made hereinabove, the view taken by the learned single Judge cannot be said to be erroneous in the eye of law in the light of scope and powers of judicial review for interference in contractual matters. This Court sitting in appeal is not supposed to substitute its own views if the findings of the learned single Judge do not suffer from perversity. It is profitable to rely upon the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of B. Venkatamuni versus C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh and others [(2006) 13 SCC 449, para-11 & 12] as also observed in the case of Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited versus Workmen of Narendra & Company [(2016) 3 SCC 340, para-5], relevant part of which is quoted hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

B. Venkatamuni vs C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh & Ors on 19 October, 2006

29. Having regard to the discussions made hereinabove, the view taken by the learned single Judge cannot be said to be erroneous in the eye of law in the light of scope and powers of judicial review for interference in contractual matters. This Court sitting in appeal is not supposed to substitute its own views if the findings of the learned single Judge do not suffer from perversity. It is profitable to rely upon the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of B. Venkatamuni versus C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh and others [(2006) 13 SCC 449, para-11 & 12] as also observed in the case of Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited versus Workmen of Narendra & Company [(2016) 3 SCC 340, para-5], relevant part of which is quoted hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 150 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Shangrila Food Products Ltd. & Anr vs Life Insurance Corporation Of Indiaand ... on 9 July, 1996

(3) SCR 105] and also in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi versus Union of India and others [(1995) 6 SCC 749] as also in the case of Shangrila Food Products Ltd And Another versus Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another [(1996) 5 SCC 54]. Since the award of work in favour of the private Respondent M/s Agarwal Global Infratech Pvt. Ltd / appellant herein was found to be flawed on grounds of arbitrariness in matters of qualification in technical bid, the consequential action to award the work in its favour could not have been upheld since it would amount to allowing the appellant M/s Agarwal Global Infratech Pvt. Ltd to enjoy the fruits of a wrong decision. The course 28 adopted by the learned single Judge to direct the Respondent State to call for a fresh tender for award of the work in such circumstances, does not call for any interference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 97 - M M Punchhi - Full Document

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

In support thereof, learned senior counsel for the appellant M/s Agarwal has relied upon the following decisions: W.B. State Electricity Board versus Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. And others [(2001) 2 SCC 451]; Glodyne Technoserve Limited Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [(2011) 5 SCC 103]; Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Private Limited versus Devkishan Computed Private Limited and others [(2016) 8 SCC 446]. He has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Galaxy Transport Agencies Contractors, Traders, Transports and Suppliers Versus New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors and Others [2020 SCC Online SC 1035] which lays down that interpretation of the tender conditions should not be second guessed by the courts in place of the authority framing the tender document, unless it is mala fide.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 342 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Bakshi Security And Personnel Services ... vs Devkishan Computed Pvt Ltd And Ors on 26 July, 2016

In support thereof, learned senior counsel for the appellant M/s Agarwal has relied upon the following decisions: W.B. State Electricity Board versus Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. And others [(2001) 2 SCC 451]; Glodyne Technoserve Limited Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [(2011) 5 SCC 103]; Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Private Limited versus Devkishan Computed Private Limited and others [(2016) 8 SCC 446]. He has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Galaxy Transport Agencies Contractors, Traders, Transports and Suppliers Versus New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors and Others [2020 SCC Online SC 1035] which lays down that interpretation of the tender conditions should not be second guessed by the courts in place of the authority framing the tender document, unless it is mala fide.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 164 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 3 Next