Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.86 seconds)Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
9.14. The Petitioner does not challenge the validity or
clarity of the eligibility conditions themselves,
but disputes the manner of their application.
Such a dispute, by its very nature, does not
attract the limited exceptions carved out in
Jagdish Mandal's case.
Section 16 in The Karnataka Transparency In Public Procurements Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Karnataka Transparency In Public Procurements Act, 1999
Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs Utpal Kumar Basu on 23 June, 1994
In Oil
and Natural Gas Commission v. Uptal Kumar Basu
case there was no cause of action either in part or in
whole that arose in the jurisdiction of the Calcutta
High Court. It was in those circumstances, the Court
ruled that the Calcutta High Court lacks territorial
jurisdiction. That is not the case in the case on hand.
A part of cause of action has occurred in this State
and therefore, it cannot be said that this Court lacks
absolute jurisdiction warranting rejection on the
ground of want of jurisdiction by this Court. On facts,
this Court holds that part of cause of action has
occurred and that the petition is maintainable in this
Court.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Santhosh Chinnappa Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2021
11.6. The reliance placed by the Petitioner on the
decision in Sri Chinnappa Reddy's case is
misplaced and inapplicable to the facts of the
present case. The Petitioner has failed to
comply with essential tender requirements,
inasmuch as the GST registration was not
furnished and the financial statements of the
associate companies identified by the Petitioner
were also not submitted. Though it is now
contended that the entities earlier identified as
associate companies are not associates but
merely shareholders of a shareholder of the
Petitioner, it is evident that the Petitioner itself
had consciously chosen and disclosed those
entities as its associates. Having done so, it
was incumbent upon the Petitioner to furnish
the requisite details and financials of such
Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. (Former ... vs The State Of Karnataka, Department Of ... on 13 September, 2007
18. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the
Petitioner to the decisions in the case of Larsen and
Tourbo Limited, West Bengal Electricity Board,
Monarch Infrastructure Limited, supra. The ratio laid
down in the aforesaid decisions do not apply to the
fact situation of the case in view of the obtaining
factual matrix which has been stated in the
preceding paragraphs. At this stage, it is relevant to
take note of Section 16 of the Karnataka
Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999
which reads as under:
G.J. Fernandez vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 1 February, 1990
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
WP No. 26719 of 2025
HC-KAR
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 held 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 deviate 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. State of
Karnataka [(1990) 2 SCC 488] a case dealing with
tenders. Although not in an entirely identical situation
as the present one, the observations in the judgment
support our view.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
The High Court has, in the
impugned decision, relied upon Ramana Dayaram
Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India
[(1979) 3 SCC 489] 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 had been relaxed and its
impact before answering the question whether it
could have validly condoned the shortcoming in the
tender in question. This part of the judgment
demonstrates the difference between the two