Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
M/S. Universal Cables Limited & Others vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Others on 25 January, 2018 cites

Dhingra Construction Co. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors. on 3 December, 2004

The decisions of the Delhi High Court in DHINGRA CONSTRUCTION COMPANYs case (2 supra) and in GHARDA CHEMICALS LIMITEDs case (3 supra) are also not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Admittedly, there are more than one bidders in the fray in this case and it is not the case of monopoly and the concept of fair competition is not subverted.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 141 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006

6. Senior counsel Sri S. Ravi, appearing for respondents 3 to 5 submitted that 2nd respondent-AP Transco has been awarding similar nature of works as a single lot and one such work is 182 kms of 220 KV lines and in the instant case the object sought to be achieved in imposing such QRs is obviously for early completion of the tender work so as to co-relate with the construction work of the capital complex of the State of Andhra Pradesh, and therefore no motives or discrimination can be attributed in insisting such QRs by the 2nd respondent. That the petitioners even without participating in the bid cannot interdict the process which is time bound. That the petitioners having not participated in the tender process cannot espouse the cause of public interest in this writ petition and their non-participation does not render the tender non-competitive as there are three bidders in the fray as joint venture partners. Relied on decisions in JAGDISH MANDAL vs. STATE OF ORISSA, & ASSOCIATION OF REGISTRATION OF PLATES vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI).
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 887 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Association Of Registration Plates vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 May, 2004

6. Senior counsel Sri S. Ravi, appearing for respondents 3 to 5 submitted that 2nd respondent-AP Transco has been awarding similar nature of works as a single lot and one such work is 182 kms of 220 KV lines and in the instant case the object sought to be achieved in imposing such QRs is obviously for early completion of the tender work so as to co-relate with the construction work of the capital complex of the State of Andhra Pradesh, and therefore no motives or discrimination can be attributed in insisting such QRs by the 2nd respondent. That the petitioners even without participating in the bid cannot interdict the process which is time bound. That the petitioners having not participated in the tender process cannot espouse the cause of public interest in this writ petition and their non-participation does not render the tender non-competitive as there are three bidders in the fray as joint venture partners. Relied on decisions in JAGDISH MANDAL vs. STATE OF ORISSA, & ASSOCIATION OF REGISTRATION OF PLATES vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI).
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 19 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Bharat Biotech International Limited ... vs A.P. Health And Medical Housing And ... on 10 December, 2002

16. The Supreme Court while upholding the pre-qualification criteria for award of tenders prescribed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, it was observed that a Court cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the government because it feels that some other terms would have been fair, wiser or logical. If the government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by Courts is very limited. The Bench further observed that a Court before interfering in tender or contractual matters, in exercise of the power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone, or so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached and (ii) Whether the public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, then there should be no interference under Article 226. The decision of this Court in BHARAT BIOTECT INTERNATIONAL LIMITEDs case (1 supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. In that case this Court found that there was only one manufacturer of vaccine supply with WHO pre-qualification and the State had definite information that only one such manufacturer exists, yet for mysterious reasons the State chose to call for tenders, which was held to be tailor-made to suit only one person. The context in which that decision is rendered is different as imposing the stipulation of WHO pre-qualification certificate for participating in the tender was challenged, but in the present case challenge is on a different ground.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 22 - Cited by 8 - J Chelameswar - Full Document
1