Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.49 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
N.D. Jayal And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 2003
32. Reference may also be made to the decision
of this Court in N.D. Jayal v. Union of India
wherein this Court observed:
Food Corporation Of India vs M/S. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries on 3 November, 1992
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu
Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71, took note
of the necessity to consider and give due weight to
the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the
person likely to be affected in contractual sphere and
held thus :
Ratnagiri Gas & Power Pvt.Ltd vs Rds Projects Ltd.& Ors on 18 October, 2012
In the case of Ratnagiri Gas and Power (P) Ltd.
v. RDS Projects Ltd., (2013) 1 SCC 524, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held thus :
Tejas Construction & Infras.Pvt.Ltd vs Municipal Council Sendhwa & Anr on 4 May, 2012
In the matter of Tejas Constructions &
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Council,
Sendhwa, ( Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has held thus :
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
In the case of Tata Cellular vs. Union of
India, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has held that the judicial
review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of
the decision in support of which the application for
judicial review is made, but the decision making
process itself. It is thus different from an appeal.
When hearing an appeal, the court is concerned with
the merits of the decision under appeal. Since the
power of judicial review is not an appeal from the
decision, the court cannot substitute its own
decision. Apart from the fact the court is hardly
equipped to do so, it would not be desirable either.
Where the selection or rejection is arbitrary,
certainly the Court would interfere. It is not the
function of a judge to act as a super-board, or
with the zeal of a pedantic schoolmaster substituting
its judgment for that of the administrator.
Poddar Steel Corporation vs Ganesh Engineering Works And Others on 6 May, 1991
In
Poddar Steel Corpn. v. Ganesh Engg. Works this
Court held as under: (SCC p. 276, para 6)
"6. ... The requirements in a tender notice can
be classified into two categories--those which lay
down the essential conditions of eligibility and the
others which are merely ancillary or subsidiary
with the main object to be achieved by the
condition. In the first case the authority issuing
the tender may be required to enforce them
rigidly. In the other cases it must be open to the
authority to deviate from and not to insist upon
the strict literal compliance of the condition in
appropriate cases."
Sterling Computers Limited Etc vs M & N Publications Limited And Ors on 12 January, 1993
45. Before we consider the issue on merit, it
will be appropriate to consider the law
declared by the apex Court on the subject. It
is well- settled that while exercising power of
judicial review in respect of the contracts
entered into on behalf of the State, the Court
is concerned primarily as to whether there has
been any infirmity in the decision making
process, and can certainly examine whether
the decision making process was rational, not
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M and
N Publications Ltd.
Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998
46. The apex Court in the case of Raunaq
International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd.