Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.31 seconds)

G.J. Fernandez vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 1 February, 1990

Secondly, arguendo, even in the absence of the above specification, the imperative nature of Section 58 (1) and 58 (3) allow any exceptions, when a notification (read the 1996 notification) stipulates specifications. The contentions of the Baroda group regarding arbitrariness and discrimination, therefore, are unpersuasive. There can be no two opinions that tender conditions bind both the state agency which invites bids for goods and services, as well as the potential supplier of those goods and services, i.e. the tenderer/bidder. (Ref G.J. Fernandez vs State Of Karnataka & Ors AIR 1990 SC 958; State of NCT of Delhi and Another v. Sanjeev alias Bittoo (2005) 5 SCC 181).
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 274 - K N Saikia - Full Document

State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Anr vs Sanjeev @ Bittoo on 4 April, 2005

Secondly, arguendo, even in the absence of the above specification, the imperative nature of Section 58 (1) and 58 (3) allow any exceptions, when a notification (read the 1996 notification) stipulates specifications. The contentions of the Baroda group regarding arbitrariness and discrimination, therefore, are unpersuasive. There can be no two opinions that tender conditions bind both the state agency which invites bids for goods and services, as well as the potential supplier of those goods and services, i.e. the tenderer/bidder. (Ref G.J. Fernandez vs State Of Karnataka & Ors AIR 1990 SC 958; State of NCT of Delhi and Another v. Sanjeev alias Bittoo (2005) 5 SCC 181).
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 228 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next