Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.44 seconds)
M/S. R. K. Sancheti, Nagpur Thr. ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary ... on 22 January, 2024 cites

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

Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489, wherein it was held that the courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters could cause. In contracts involving technical issues, the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in Judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. As laid down in the judgments cited above, the 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. The courts must also not interfere where such interference would cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. -----.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 560 - M B Lokur - Full Document

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

The 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. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. (See: Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489).
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 312 - D Gupta - Full Document

Uflex Ltd. vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 17 September, 2021

In Uflex Ltd. v. State of T.N., (2022) 1 SCC 165], this Court stated that the enlarged role of the Government in economic activity and its corresponding ability to give economic "largesse" was the bedrock of creating what is commonly called the "tender jurisdiction". The objective was to have greater transparency and the consequent right of an aggrieved party to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India beyond the issue of strict enforcement of contractual rights under the civil jurisdiction. However, the ground reality today is that almost no tender remains unchallenged. Unsuccessful parties or parties not even participating in the tender seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 KHUNTE WP-6216.23+3-J Tenders.odt 13/27 of the Constitution. ---.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 112 - S K Kaul - Full Document

M/S Galaxy Transport ... vs M/S New J.K. Roadways,Fleet Owners And ... on 18 December, 2020

In Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways, (2021) 16 SCC 808 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1035, a three- Judge Bench again reiterated that the authority that authors the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and thus, its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review proceedings. ---.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 73 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Association Of Registration Plates vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 November, 2004

52. Ordinarily, a writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer unless something very gross or palpable is KHUNTE WP-6216.23+3-J Tenders.odt 16/27 pointed out. The court ordinarily should not interfere in matters relating to tender or contract. To set at naught the entire tender process at the stage when the contract is well underway, would not be in public interest. Initiating a fresh tender process at this stage may consume lot of time and also loss to the public exchequer to the tune of crores of rupees. The financial burden/implications on the public exchequer that the State may have to meet with if the Court directs issue of a fresh tender notice, should be one of the guiding factors that the Court should keep in mind. This is evident from a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 679.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 208 - Full Document

Air India Ltd. vs Cochin International Airport Ltd. on 31 January, 2000

53. The law relating to award of contract by the State and public sector corporations was reviewed in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 and it was held that the award of a contract, whether by a private party or by a State, is essentially a commercial transaction. It can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It was further held that the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process, the court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should interfere.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 806 - Full Document
1   2 Next