Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)
Bajaj Electricals Limited, Bombay And ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 21 September, 2001 cites

Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994

18. In the instant writ petition, Clause 3(a) and 3(b) of tender notice are impugned. We have already noticed the relevant clauses and the grounds of attack. Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation, submits that the terms of the Invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny. The invitation to tender, be it by private or a public body, is in the realm of contract. Reliance is placed upon the well-known decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India (supra), the Supreme Court after referring to its various earlier decisions observed that the following principles are deducible:
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3275 - S Mohan - Full Document

Air India Ltd. vs Cochin International Airport Ltd. on 31 January, 2000

15. It is well settled that the State or its instrumentality can choose its own method at arriving at a decision. It is true the State or its instrumentality cannot deviate from the specified norms after their notification for the benefit of intending bidders and public at large. But, in a given case, relaxation for bona fide reasons could be granted if the tender conditions permit such relaxation (See Ranuaq International Limited v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., and Air India Limited v. Cochin International Airport Limited, 2000 (1) Supreme 351). It is equally well settled that this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not exercise any appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the State and its instrumentalities in the matter of award of contracts. Substitution of opinion by this court for that of the authorities concerned is impermissible in law. The decisions of the authorities concerned cannot be subjected to appellate scrutiny by this court. It is true, this court can examine the decision making process and interfere, if the same is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness or arbitrariness. The State and its instrumentalities, agencies have the public duty to be fair to all the concerned.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 806 - Full Document

Krishnan Kakkantn vs Government Of Kerala And Ors on 11 October, 1996

27. It is well settled by the Supreme Court in Krishnan Kakkant v. Government of Kerala, , that Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India guarantees every citizen, freedom and right to choose his own employment or take up any trade or business subject only to the limits as may be imposed by the State in the interest of the public welfare and other conditions mentioned in clause (6) of Article 19 "but it may be emphasised that the constitution does not require franchise or right to business which are dependent on grant by the State or business effected by the public interest". It is further observed by the Supreme Court that although a citizen has a fundamental right to carry on trade or business, he has no fundamental right to insist upon the Government or any other individual for doing business with it. "Any Government or individual has got a right to enter into trade or business with a person or persons with whom he or if will dear (emphasis is of mine).
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 188 - G N Ray - Full Document

Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979

The exercise of power or discretion by the State or its instrumentalities is subject to the constitutional or public law limitations. They cannot act arbitrarily and enter into relationships with any person they like at their sweet will. Their actions are bound to be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. The State, while entering into relationship-contractual or otherwise -with a 3rd party, is expected to act in a rational and non-discriminatory manner and confined to some standard and norm, which is rational and free from arbitrariness (See Ramana v. International Airport Authority, 1979 (3) SCC 488; Fertilizer Corporation v. Union of India, and Asst.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 2519 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1