Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)
M/S Fs And T Electricals vs State Of Mizoram And 3 Ors on 29 May, 2026 cites

Pritish vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 21 November, 2001

In support of the same, reliance is placed on the case of Pritish (supra) and M/s KG Marketing India (supra). Likewise, Mr. A.R Malhotra the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has also submitted that in view of the petitioner having produced the signatures of all the three (3) firms, who claim to have a joint venture agreement belatedly in the writ petition, while failing to upload the same, in the tender process should be enquired upon to find out the truth. It may be noticed that in the foregoing paragraph, that this Court had taken into account the fact that the respondent No. 4 does not claim to have submitted the actual bank guarantee instrument but only the form or format as was provided in the tender documents was subimittrd. At the same time, the FDR submitted by the respondent No. 4 was accepted as a bank guarantee as per the decision taken in the pre-bid meeting held on 10.11.2025. Likewise, this Court has also observed that since the petitioner failed to upload the entire joint venture agreement, which includes the signatures of all the three (3) firms at the time of submission of the bid, submission of the complete joint venture agreement at this stage in the writ petition would be of no consequence. In other words, this Court has accepted the decision taken by the respondent authorities in not accepting the bid of the petitioner on this ground and therefore, under the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find the necessity for directing a preliminary inquiry, as prayed for by the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 125 - Full Document

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

In M/s Silppi Constructions Contractors (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the given facts of the case held that the Courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. That Courts should give way to the opinion of the expertise unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable. If two interpretations are possible, the interpretation of the employer must be accepted. [30.] In the present case, as may be noticed, the petitioner failed to demonstrate its financial soundness to the satisfaction of the tender authority and the decision taken could not be said to be arbitrary, since the joint venture agreement submitted by the petitioner was found to be with only one signatory. Therefore, when the petitioner did not qualify in the bidding process, it cannot be said to have any legitimate grievance in the selection of respondent No. 4, whose tender was otherwise found to be valid. [31.] Having come to the above conclusion, further reference to the authorities relied upon by the parties is found to be not necessary. In the result, the writ petition is found to be without merit and the same is dismissed. Likewise, in view of what has been observed hereinabove, the interlocutory application is also found to be without merit and the same is dismissed. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 312 - D Gupta - Full Document

G.J. Fernandez vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 1 February, 1990

(viii) G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 488. [14.] Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, submits that he adopts the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General. He further submits that the ground of challenge, according to the petitioner is that no fresh EMD was presented by the respondent No. 4 and the earlier EMD was carried forward. In this connection, the learned counsel submits that as per the provisions of Rule - 42(5) of the Mizoram Public Procurement Rules, 2020, the bid security originally deposited is to be taken into consideration in case bids are re-invited. In the present case, the earlier NIT dated 19.09.2025 was superseded by the second NIT dated 06.11.2025 by which re-tender of the works in question was made. Therefore, as permissible under the Public Procurement Rules, the bid security of the respondent No. 4, which was in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) was carried forward. The learned counsel submits that insofar as the deletion of Clause - 2(iii) of the Instructions to tenderers in the SBD, the petitioner never raised any grievance against the same and instead participated in the tender process. After participating in the tender process and becoming unsuccessful, the petitioner cannot now turn around and challenge the deletion of Page No.# 12/21 2026:GAU-MZ:245 the said clause.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 274 - K N Saikia - Full Document
1   2 Next