Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 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

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

Central Coalfieds Limited vs Sll-Sml (Joint Venture Consortium) . on 17 August, 2016

[See: para-47 and 48 of Central Coalfields Limited (Supra)]. The Apex Court in the facts of the said case found that if the employer prescribes a particular format of the bank guarantee to be furnished, then a bidder ought to submit the bank guarantee in that particular format only and not in any other format. However, it was also observed that there is no inflexibility in this regard that the employer could deviate from the bid document but only within the parameter mentioned above.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 9 - Cited by 360 - M B Lokur - 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

State Of Punjab & Anr vs Brijeshwar Singh Chahal & Anr on 30 March, 2016

Mr. Krishna Murari has further relied upon the decision in the case of Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner versus Mohan Lal [(2010) 1 SCC 512]; State of Punjab and Another versus Brijeshwar Singh Chahal and another [(2016) 6 SCC 1, para-19 and 39] and Shaik Janimiya versus State Bank of India, SAM Branch II, Rep by its Authorized Officer, Kachiguda, Hyderabad [(2020) 4 ALD 397 para-42 & 43]. Learned counsel for the P-2 has summarized his argument based on the aforesaid facts and the legal proposition. Learned counsel Mr. Krishna Murari has submitted that the findings of the learned Single Judge contained in the impugned judgment do not suffer from any perversity or error. The appeal being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. Reply on behalf of appellants in LPA Nos. 112/2020 & 113/2020
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 117 - T S Thakur - Full Document
1