Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.59 seconds)Poddar Steel Corporation vs Ganesh Engineering Works And Others on 6 May, 1991
(iii) In 1991(3) Supreme Court Cases 273 Poddar Steeel Corporation Vs. Ganesh Engineering Works and others wherein it has been held as follows :
G.J. Fernandez vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 1 February, 1990
It is true that in submitting its tender accompanied by a cheque of the Union Bank of India and not of the State Bank clause 6 of the Tender notice was not obeyed literally, but the question is as to whether the said non-compliance deprived the Diesel Locomotive Works of the authority to accept the bid. As a matter of general proposition it cannot be hld that an authority inviting tenders is bound to give effect to every term mentioned in the notice in meticulous detail, and is not entitled to waive even a technical irregularity of little or no significance. The requirements in a tender notice can be classified into two categories those which lay down the essential conditions of eligibility and the others which are merely ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by the condition. In the first case the authority issuing the tender may be required to enforce them rigidly. In the other cases it must be open to the authority to dviate from and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance of the condition in appropriate cases. This aspect was examined by this Court in C.J.Fernandez v. Stae of Karnataka a case dealing with tenders. Although not in an entirely identical situation as the present one, the observations in the judment support our view.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
The High Court has in the inpugned decision, relied upon Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India but has failed to appreciate that the reported case belonged to the first category where the strict compliance of the condition could be insisted upon. The authority in that case, by not insisting upon the requirement in the tender notice which was an essential condition of eligibility, bestowed a favour on one of the bidders, which amounted to illegal discrimination. The judgment indicates that the court closely examined the nature of the condition which could have validly condoned the shortcoming in the tender in question. This part of the judgment demonstrates the difference between the two categories of the conditions discussed above. However it remains to be seen as to which of the two clauses, the present case belongs.
Dutta Associates Pvt.Ltd vs Indo Merchatiles Pvt.Ltd & Ors on 18 November, 1996
(iv) In 1997(1) Supreme Court Cases 53 - Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indi Merchantiles Pvt. Ltd. and others
wherein it has been held that
In this case, the entire procedure followed by the Commissioner and the Government of Assam in accepting the tender of the appellant is unfair and opposed to the norms which the Government should follow in such matters, viz., openness, transparency and fair dealing for the following reasons :
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Arti Devi Dangi on 14 October, 2015
(i) 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1370 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Ors Vs. Arti Devi Dnagi and Anr. with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors Vs Monhan Singh Parmar wherein it has been held that
8. If the clauses in the advertisement required a tenderer to fullfill all the requirements under the rules and sub-rules of P.W.D. and if what was suggested/recommended by the I.R.C. Has been adopted by the State P.W.D. and the said norms are in the interest of public safety and would facilitate smooth movement of traffic, it will be difficult to hold that the rules and sub-rules of P.W.D. contemplated in the advertisement do not embrace the I.R.C. Guidelines either because there was no specific mention thereof in the tender documents or the same do not have a statutory flavour. We, therefore, hold that the fulfillment of the requirements spelt out by the I.R.C. Guidelines relevant to the present cases to be a mandatory requirement of the tender conditions. Coupled with the above what we find is that the action of the appellant Corporation cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable in as much as a uniform standard has been applied to all the applicants and in the present two appeals in question no candidate has been found to be eligible upon application of the said uniform standard i.e. The I.R.C. Norms. The action of the appellant corporation, therefore, not being in any manner arbitrary or unreasonable the power of judicial review vested in the High Court ought to have been exercised with due circumspection.
M/S Michigan Rubber(I) Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 August, 2012
(ii) In 2012 (8) Supreme Court Cases 216 Michigan Rubber (India) Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and others it has been held as follows:-
Meerut Devt.Authority vs Association Of Management Studies & Anr on 17 April, 2009
(iii) In 2009 (6) Supreme Court Cases 171 Meerut Development Authority Vs. Association of Management Studies and another with Pawan Kumar Agarwal Vs. Meerut Development Authority and Another
26. A tender is an offer. It is something which invites and is communicated to notify acceptance. Broadly stated it must be unconditional; must be in the proper form, the person by whom tender is made must be able to and willing to perform his obligations. The terms of he invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. However, a limited judicial review may be available in cases where it is established that the terms of the invitation to tender were so tailor-made to suit the convenience of any particular person with a view to eliminate all others from participating in the bidding process.
Harminder Singh Arora vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 May, 1986
It is contended for the appellant that the tender submitted by respondent 4 did not satisfy the requirement of para 2 of the tender notice. The tenders had been invited for the supply of pure fresh buffalo's milk or fresh cow's milk but the respondent had submitted tender for supplying pasteurized milk and therefore, the tender submitted by respondent 4 being not in conformity with the tender notice should not have been accepted by the authorities. In any case, if the tender of respondent 4 regarding supply of pasteurized mild was accepted and the original terms of the tender notice were changed, the appellant should have been given an opportunity to submit his tender in conformity with the changed terms but this was not done which has caused serious prejudice to the appellant. If the tender forms submitted by any party is not in conformity with the conditions of the tender notice the same should not have been accepted but the authorities concerned arbitrarily and in a fanciful manner accepted the tender of respondent 4. The State or its instrumentality has to act in accordance with the conditions laid down in the tender notice. In any case if the authorities chose to accept the tender of respondent 4 for supplying pasteurised milk, the appellant should also have given an opportunity to change his tender. The authorities have however, given preference to the tender of respondent 4 for offering to supply pasteurized milk contrary to the terms contained in para 2 of the tender notice. We find considerable force in the contention of the appellant.