Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)
Rakesh Kumar Choudhary vs Union Of India And Others on 29 July, 2022 cites

Mahadev Mohandas Rajani vs Jeram Mohandas Rajani, Since Decd. ... on 19 April, 2018

08. The respondents further submit that the petitioner, in connection with the experience certificates, had produced as many as six certificates from the Executive Engineer, PMGSY, Doda, Executive Engineer, PW(R&B), Division of GurdanBala, Rajouri, 6 WP(C) No.1196/2021 Executive Engineer, PW(R&B), Division Kishtwar, Executive Engineer, PW(R&B), Division Mendhar, Executive Engineer, PMGSY, Doda and Executive Engineer, PW(R&B), Division Kishtwar, referred in the letters from RO Jammu in Para „O‟ of the objections, that are; (i) NHAI/RO-JAMMU/2010/11012/NS-33/332 (ii) NHAI/RO-JAMMU/2010/11012/NS-33/333 (iii) NHAI/RO- JAMMU/2010/11012/NS-33/334 (iv) NHAI/RO-JAMMU/2010/11012/NS- 33/335 (v) NHAI/RO-JAMMU/2010/11012/NS-33/336 (vi) NHAI/RO- JAMMU/2010/11012/NS-33/337. In response to the above letters, confirmation from the Executive Engineer, PW(R&B) Kishtwar and Executive Engineer, PMGSY, Doda about the correctness of the experience certificates were received through speed post, however, no response was received from Executive Engineer, PW(R&B) GurdanBala and Mendhar within the stipulated period. Since the confirmation, received from two Executive Engineers was enough for satisfaction of the correctness of experience as the T.E.C had relied upon the certificates. After receipt of the order passed in WP(C) No. 2266/2018 from the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi, the respondents directed the petitioner to submit his comments/confirmation regarding genuineness of the said documents within a week‟s time. The petitioner in compliance to this said order submitted his reply and, accordingly, a speaking order in terms of the order of Hon‟ble High Court at Delhi was passed on 21.05.2018. Mohandas V. Rajani stated that they were satisfied with the position brought out in the speaking order and, therefore, their complaint vide letter dated 25.02.2018 regarding Technical Evaluation might be treated as closed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - A J Shastri - Full Document

M/S Patel Enginnering Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 11 May, 2012

In „M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. V. Union of India and another‟, (2012) 11 SCC 257, it was held that the express condition in tender document for blacklisting a tenderer/contractor for some action or inaction on its part is not necessary since power not to enter into contract with a particular person is inherent in every person legally capable of entering into contracts. It further held failure to mention blacklisting to be one of the probable actions that could be taken against the delinquent bidder does not, by itself, disable the respondent from blacklisting a delinquent bidder, if it is otherwise justified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 198 - Full Document
1