Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.32 seconds)Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
22. This view has been further considered by this Court in
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Others2, wherein it was
observed as under:-
The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019
“20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred
to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for
overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in
matters of contract involving the State instrumentalities; the
courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the
decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not
sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court
must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best
judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference
should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or
tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge
as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two
interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author
must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent
arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With
this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case.”
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
In Tata Cellular v. Union of India1 it was held that judicial
review of government contracts is permissible in order to prevent
arbitrariness or favouritism. It was fearlessly opined in this case
as under:-
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 15 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
1