cites: 127393305

Montecarlo Ltd vs Ntpc Ltd on 18 October, 2016

23. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Agmatel India Private Limited (supra) after taking into consideration various decisions including Afcons (supra), Silppi Constructions (supra) and Montecarlo (supra) held that the author of the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirement and if its interpretation is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserves the purpose for which the tender is floated, the Court should follow the principle of restraint. It was further observed that even if the interpretation given to the tender document by the person inviting offers is not acceptable to the constitutional court, that by itself would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.

Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 201 - D Misra - Full Document

The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019

23. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Agmatel India Private Limited (supra) after taking into consideration various decisions including Afcons (supra), Silppi Constructions (supra) and Montecarlo (supra) held that the author of the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirement and if its interpretation is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserves the purpose for which the tender is floated, the Court should follow the principle of restraint. It was further observed that even if the interpretation given to the tender document by the person inviting offers is not acceptable to the constitutional court, that by itself would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.

Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 312 - D Gupta - Full Document

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr on 15 September, 2016

23. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Agmatel India Private Limited (supra) after taking into consideration various decisions including Afcons (supra), Silppi Constructions (supra) and Montecarlo (supra) held that the author of the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirement and if its interpretation is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserves the purpose for which the tender is floated, the Court should follow the principle of restraint. It was further observed that even if the interpretation given to the tender document by the person inviting offers is not acceptable to the constitutional court, that by itself would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.

Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 560 - M B Lokur - Full Document

M/S Agmatel India Private Limited vs M/S Resoursys Telecom on 31 January, 2022

23. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Agmatel India Private Limited (supra) after taking into consideration various decisions including Afcons (supra), Silppi Constructions (supra) and Montecarlo (supra) held that the author of the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirement and if its interpretation is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserves the purpose for which the tender is floated, the Court should follow the principle of restraint. It was further observed that even if the interpretation given to the tender document by the person inviting offers is not acceptable to the constitutional court, that by itself would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.

Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 73 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Rishi Kiran Logistics P.Ltd vs Board Of Trus. Of Kandla Port Trust&Ors; on 21 April, 2014

26. As rightly argued by Mr. Mitra, that apart from bald averments there are no specific pleadings as to how the decision of the tender inviting authority can be said to be actuated with mala fides. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rishi Kiran Logistics (supra) and Ratnagiri Gas (supra) held that it is obligatory for the persons alleging malice in fact to furnish particulars that would provide mala fides on the part of the decision maker and vague and general allegations unsupported by the requisite particulars do not provided a sound basis for the court to conduct an enquiry into their veracity. Merely because of the fact that bids were opened on a Saturday, that by itself cannot be a ground to hold that the decision of the tender inviting authority was actuated with mala fides.

Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 179 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Ratnagiri Gas & Power Pvt.Ltd vs Rds Projects Ltd.& Ors on 18 October, 2012

26. As rightly argued by Mr. Mitra, that apart from bald averments there are no specific pleadings as to how the decision of the tender inviting authority can be said to be actuated with mala fides. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rishi Kiran Logistics (supra) and Ratnagiri Gas (supra) held that it is obligatory for the persons alleging malice in fact to furnish particulars that would provide mala fides on the part of the decision maker and vague and general allegations unsupported by the requisite particulars do not provided a sound basis for the court to conduct an enquiry into their veracity. Merely because of the fact that bids were opened on a Saturday, that by itself cannot be a ground to hold that the decision of the tender inviting authority was actuated with mala fides.

Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 79 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search