Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.90 seconds)Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Companies Act, 1956
Karnataka State Industrial Investment ... vs Cavalet India Ltd. And Ors on 30 March, 2005
In Karnataka SIIDC Ltd. vs. Cavalet India Ltd.4 it was
held that while effective steps must be taken to realise the
maximum amount, the High Court exercising its power under
Article 226 of the Constitution is not competent to decide the
correctness of the sale affected by the Corporation.
M/S Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd vs Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 19 April, 2005
In Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. vs. Metcalfe &
Hodgkinson (P) Ltd.5 it was held that while exercising power of
judicial review in respect of contracts, the Court should concern
itself primarily with the question, whether there has been any
infirmity in the decisionmaking process. By way of judicial
review, Court cannot examine details of terms of contract which
have been entered into by public bodies or State.
Mr. B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd vs Nair Coal Services Ltd. & Ors on 31 October, 2006
In B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd.6 it
was held that it is not always necessary that a contract be
awarded to the lowest tenderer and it must be kept in mind that
the employer is the best judge therefor; the same ordinarily being
within its domain. Therefore, the court's interference in such
4 (2005) 4 SCC 456
5 (2005) 6 SCC 138
6 (2006) 11 SCC 548
6
matters should be minimal. The High Court's jurisdiction in such
matters being limited, the Court should normally exercise judicial
restraint unless illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the
employer is apparent on the face of the record.
Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa7 it was held:
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India1, it was held that
judicial review of government contracts was permissible in order
to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. The principles enunciated
in this case are :
“94. …….
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr on 15 September, 2016
In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Nagpur Metro Rail
Corporation Ltd.9 it was held that a mere disagreement with the
decisionmaking process or the decision of the administrative
authority is no reason for a constitutional Court to interfere. The
threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or
arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the
constitutional Court interferes with the decisionmaking process
or the decision. The owner or the employer of a project, having
authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand
and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. It is
possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an
interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to
the constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for
interfering with the interpretation given.
9 (2016) 16 SCC 818; 2016 KHC 6606
Montecarlo Ltd vs Ntpc Ltd on 18 October, 2016
In Montecarlo vs. NTPC Ltd.10 it was held that where a
decision is taken that is manifestly in consonance with the
language of the tender document or subserves the purpose for
which the tender is floated, the court should follow the principle
of restraint. Technical evaluation or comparison by the court
would be impermissible. The principle that is applied to scan and
understand an ordinary instrument relatable to contract in other
spheres has to be treated differently than interpreting and
appreciating tender documents relating to technical works and
projects requiring special skills. The owner should be allowed to
carry out the purpose and there has to be allowance of free play
in the joints.