Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Central Coalfieds Limited vs Sll-Sml (Joint Venture Consortium) . on 17 August, 2016
"11. Recently, in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint
Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622, it was held by this
Court, relying on a host of decisions that the decision-making
process of the employer or owner of the project in accepting or
rejecting the bid of a tenderer should not be interfered with.
Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons vs Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 27 April, 1989
In Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Port of
Bombay, (1989) 3 SCC 293, it was held that the constitutional
courts are concerned with the decision-making process.
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
Tata
Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 went a step
further and held that a decision if challenged (the decision
having been arrived at through a valid process), the
constitutional courts can interfere if the decision is perverse.
However, the constitutional courts are expected to exercise
restraint in interfering with the administrative decision and
ought not to substitute its view for that of the administrative
authority.
The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019
37. As per the reply tendered by the Government, ACFTs fall within the
purview of Fire Tenders in an enclosed premise i.e., the airport, and as such,
the stipulation that they comply with Bharat Stage VI emission norms was not
called for. Thus, ACFTs used within the enclosed premises i.e. the airports
do not fall within the definition of "motor vehicles", and no fault can be
found with the cancelling of the tender in question. The decision of
respondent No. 1 in cancelling the tender is not arbitrary, mala fide or
whimsical, but is based upon reasoning, application of mind, and was done
with the approval of the competent authority. The Supreme Court in its
judgment tiled as Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India3,
observed as under:
M/S Agmatel India Private Limited vs M/S Resoursys Telecom on 31 January, 2022
43. If the view of the tendering authority is plausible and reasonable, the
Courts in their limited judicial scrutiny cannot take a contrary view. For the
reasons stated above, the view of respondent no. 1 that ACFT is not a
W.P.(C) 14608/2021 Page 31 of 34
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AMIT ARORA
Signing Date:20.04.2022
18:17:20
transport vehicle and hence, EURO VI emission norms may not be strictly
applicable, is plausible, and is based on the documents placed before us.
Unless the decision is arbitrary, illegal, biased or unreasonable, the Court
would not interfere with a plausible view. The same has been stated in
Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom and othrs.4 wherein the
Supreme Court observed:
National High Speed Rail Corporation ... vs Montecarlo Limited on 31 January, 2022
29. At the outset, we may observe that the scope of judicial scrutiny in
these matters is extremely limited. This position has been made clear in
National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited v. Montecarlo Limited and
Anr.1 wherein the Supreme Court relied upon the judgment of Afcons
Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited2
wherein it was observed:
Laxmikant & Ors vs Satyawan & Ors on 19 March, 1996
Satyawan [Laxmikant v. Satyawan, (1996) 4 SCC 208] ,
Rajasthan Housing Board v. G.S. Investments [Rajasthan
Housing Board v. G.S. Investments, (2007) 1 SCC 477] and
U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad v. Om Prakash Sharma [U.P.
Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Om Prakash Sharma, (2013) 5
SCC 182 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 737] ).