Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)Eva Agro Feeds Private Limited vs Punjab National Bank on 6 September, 2023
12. The appellant also submitted that the replies to his RTI
applications establish that he had complied with all tender conditions
6
and had validly deposited the required earnest money. The
cancellation of the appellant’s bid amounts to rewriting the tender
after the bids were opened, which is not permitted in law. It is
contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it is arbitrary, for
a statutory authority to cancel a valid bid on grounds that were not
mentioned in the auction brochure. That comparing the appellant’s
bid with dissimilar plots (which were smaller) amounts to imposing
new tender conditions after the auction. Our attention was drawn to
the decision of this Court in Eva Agro Feeds (P) Ltd. vs. Punjab
National Bank, (2023) 10 SCC 189 (“Eva Agro Feeds”) in which a
two-judge bench of this Court (B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan,
JJ.) held that “…mere expectation of the Liquidator that a still higher
price may be obtained can be no good ground to cancel an otherwise
valid auction and go for another round of auction. Such a cause of
action would not only lead to incurring of avoidable expenses but also
erode the credibility of the auction process itself”. The appellant
submitted that this principle applies in the present case, where the
auction was cancelled arbitrarily because of a ground that was not
provided in the brochure.
Tata Motors Limited vs The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply And ... on 19 May, 2023
In this regard, our
attention was drawn to the decision of a three-Judge Bench of this
Court in Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply &
Transport Undertaking, (2023) 19 SCC 1, wherein it was observed
that “courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the
tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In
fact, the courts must give “fair play in the joints” to the government and
public sector undertakings in matters of contract”.
K. Kumara Gupta vs Sri Markendaya And Sri Omkareswara ... on 18 February, 2022
In K. Kumara Gupta vs. Sri Markendaya & Sri
Omkareswara Swamy Temple, (2022) 5 SCC 710, it was observed
by this Court that unless and until it was found that there was any
material irregularity and/or illegality in holding the public auction
and/or the auction was vitiated by any fraud or collusion, it is not
open to set aside the auction or sale in favour of the highest bidder
on the basis of some representation made by a third party who did
not even participate even in the auction proceedings and did not
make any offer. If there is repeated interference in the auction
process, the object and purpose of holding public auction and its
sanctity would be frustrated. That unless there are allegations of
fraud, collusion, etc., the highest offer received in the public offer
12
should be accepted as a fair value. Otherwise, there shall not be any
sanctity of any public auction.
Haryana Urban Dev. Authority & Ors vs Orchid Infrastructure Developers ... on 27 January, 2017
a) In Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Orchid
Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd., (2017) 4 SCC 243, the
contract contained an express clause stating that the presiding
officer had the right to reject a bid without offering any reasons.
Rajasthan Housing Board And Another vs G.S. Investments And Another on 31 October, 2006
b) In Rajasthan Housing Board vs. G.S. Investments, (2007) 1
SCC 477, owing to a news item published in a newspaper that
large scale bungling had taken place in the auction due to which
the price fetched for the plots was much below the market rate,
a direction was issued by this Court to hold a fresh auction. Such
a situation did not arise in the instant case.
State Of Orissa And Ors vs Harinarayan Jaiswal And Ors on 14 March, 1972
c) In State of Orissa vs. Harinarayan Jaiswal, (1972) 2 SCC 36,
there was a direction to hold a re-auction as the power to accept
or reject the bid was given to the highest authority in the State
and the State Government was of the opinion that the price was
inadequate. Possibly, in the facts of the said case, the said
direction was issued by this Court.
U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors vs Om Prakash Sharma on 18 April, 2013
d) In Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Om Prakash
Sharma, (2013) 5 SCC 182, the reserve price was fixed at
Rs.1,80,200/- and the respondent therein offered Rs.1,31,500/-
which was much less than the reserve price. Hence, the bid was
rightly rejected.
Meerut Devt.Authority vs Association Of Management Studies & Anr on 17 April, 2009
e) In Meerut Development Authority vs. Association of
Management Studies, (2009) 6 SCC 171, the request of the
respondent therein for allotment of remaining 20,000 square
metres to them as they had acquired 37,000 square metres of
land as per the reserve price, was rejected as the price quoted
had been lower than the reserve price for the said remaining land
and rightly so.
M.P. Power Management Company Limited vs M/S Sky Power Southeast Solar India ... on 16 November, 2022
a) In M.P. Power Management Company Limited vs. Sky Power
Southeast Solar India (Private) Limited, (2023) 2 SCC 703,
the bid of the respondent therein was accepted and it was
23
observed that public interest cannot always be conflated with an
evaluation of the monetary gain or loss alone.