Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)
Pmi Electro Mobility Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Convergence Energy Services Limited & ... on 20 December, 2024 cites

Secy. Deptt. Of Home Secy.A.P. & Ors vs B. Chinnam Naidu on 9 February, 2005

28. This being the case, State of A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu is clearly distinguishable, as in the facts of that case, the expression "convicted" could not have possibly included the factum of arrest which was pre-conviction. On the facts of the present case, we have seen as to how UPSBC has indulged in a fraudulent practice and has suppressed the fact that it was indicted for offences relatable to the construction of a bridge by it, which had collapsed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 85 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Caretel Infotech Ltd. vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 9 April, 2019

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/01/2025 at 00:02:59 Petitioner was required to submit along with the bid. The Petitioner bona fide understood that the disclosure requirement applied to only 'criminal' investigation. Mr. Nayar asserts that, the entire basis of cancelling the Petitioner's bid is illogical, unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 6.6. To support the aforenoted contentions, Mr. Nayar also places reliance on the decision in Caretel Infotech Limited v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others.4 RESPONDENT NO. 1'S CONTENTIONS:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 111 - S K Kaul - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited on 8 December, 2020

12. The explanation provided through a note, suggests that the disclosure of the Applicant, has to be in relation to an investigation being carried out by the 'investigating agency'. While this Court is not emphasizing the distinction between an 'investigation' and an 'inquiry', the use of the term "Investigating Agency" in the explanatory note naturally leads to inference that the inquiry referred to pertains to a "criminal investigation". On this issue, the judgment dated 8th December, 2020, in the State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & Anr.5 relied upon by Mr. Sharma, also gives certain guidance. In the said case, the Bidder was supposed to disclose certain details as an undertaking to the following effect:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1