Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.58 seconds)
Pressure Sensitive System (India) Ltd. vs Aristocraft International Pvt. Ltd. ... on 2 January, 2001
cites
Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Ulhasnagar Municipal ... on 8 May, 2000
36. Learned counsel appearing for M/s Aristrocraft International Ltd. placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Monarch Infrastructrue (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, 2000 (6) JT (SC) 491 (AIR 2000 SC 2272). In the said case the High Court set aside the award of contract in favour of M/s Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. because it had not fulfilled the condition regarding the Clause 6(a) of the tender notice. Same was deleted subsequent to the last date of acceptance of the tenders. The Apex Court approved the decision as the fresh tenders were already invited by the time the matter came to be decided by the Apex Court. The Apex Court considering the public interest allowed the tender process to be completed by accepting the highest offer made by M/s Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. subject to raising its bid to match with that of Ramchand Mahadeo Rao, though invalid. It is true that the terms of the tender were deleted in the said case had the same effect after the supplier entered into arena rules of the games are changed after game had begun.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sterling Computers Limited Etc vs M & N Publications Limited And Ors on 12 January, 1993
27. Certain measure of free play in joint is necessary in administrative body functioning in its administration as held in case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 : AIR 1979 SC 1628, Kasturilal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1980) 4 SCC 1, Fasih Chaudhary v. Director General, Doordarshan, (1989) 1 SCC 89 : (AIR 1989 SC 157), Sterling Computers Limited v. M & N Publications Limited, (1993) SCC 445 : (AIR 1996 SC 51), Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, (1993) 3 SCC 499 : (AIR 1994 SC 988). At the same time State in exercise of various functions is governed by mandate of Article 14, it cannot act arbitrarily. It has to act fairly and reasonably and in the matter of award of contract has to satisfy this criteria. Public interest can not be given a go by in the choice of a person. In our opinion relaxation of time frame was necessitated and cannot be termed as action beyond permissible free play in joints envisaged while entering into contract.
Poddar Steel Corporation vs Ganesh Engineering Works And Others on 6 May, 1991
42. Learned counsel for the petitioner M/ s Aristrocraft International Pvt. Ltd has also drawn our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in case of Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works (1991) 3 SCC 273 : AIR 1991 SC 1579 wherein the Apex Court has classified the requirement in a tender notice into two categories those which lay down the essential condition of eligibility and the others which are merely ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be levied 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. We have already found that time frame had to be deviated by compulsion considering the quantity offered in the tender there were reciprocal obligations. Thus, in our opinion the time was not the essence of the contract and otherwise also in facts of the case it was open for the Government to deviate.
Fasih Chaudhary vs Director General, Doordarshan & Ors on 28 September, 1988
27. Certain measure of free play in joint is necessary in administrative body functioning in its administration as held in case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 : AIR 1979 SC 1628, Kasturilal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1980) 4 SCC 1, Fasih Chaudhary v. Director General, Doordarshan, (1989) 1 SCC 89 : (AIR 1989 SC 157), Sterling Computers Limited v. M & N Publications Limited, (1993) SCC 445 : (AIR 1996 SC 51), Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, (1993) 3 SCC 499 : (AIR 1994 SC 988). At the same time State in exercise of various functions is governed by mandate of Article 14, it cannot act arbitrarily. It has to act fairly and reasonably and in the matter of award of contract has to satisfy this criteria. Public interest can not be given a go by in the choice of a person. In our opinion relaxation of time frame was necessitated and cannot be termed as action beyond permissible free play in joints envisaged while entering into contract.
Dutta Associates Pvt.Ltd vs Indo Merchatiles Pvt.Ltd & Ors on 18 November, 1996
In case of Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Merchantiles Pvt. Ltd., (1997) 1 SCC 53, wherein lowest tender offered was sought to be revised by the Government on the ground to bring in its viability range was made higher. The acceptance of a tender at a higher rate was quashed being against the interest of revenue. But in the instant case we find offer L-1 has been accepted.
G.J. Fernandez vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 1 February, 1990
29. Matter of relaxation of the condition was considered by the Apex Court in case of G. J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990 SC 958 in which it has been laid down that "It is not that the authority inviting tenders cannot deviate or relax the prescribed standard in any situation, But any deviation, if made, should not result in arbitrariness or discrimination.
M/S. Arosan Enterprises Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 16 September, 1999
The obligations are mutual and terms of the agreement in the instant case are inter-dependent. The time clause is subject to other clauses including the Clause 1.3 of Section IV which enables deviation to the terms and conditions read with Clause 8.1 in the same Section IV exact quantity may vary at the time of placement of order. In the
instant case we find that seller has to be instructed as per the terms of the agreement to perform his duty and effect delivery thereafter not otherwise. Thus, ratio of the decision in case of M/s Arosan Enterprises Ltd. (supra) is attracted and it cannot be said that the time is essence of the contract and could not be varied. Quantity and time both could vary as they are inter-dependent.