Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.36 seconds)
M/S Chamunda Construction Company vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 28 September, 2020
cites
Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998
In Raunaq International Ltd. vs. I.V.R.
Construction Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 492, this Court
held that superior courts should not interfere in
matters of tenders unless substantial public
interest was involved or the transaction was mala
fide.
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr on 15 September, 2016
In Montecarlo Ltd. vs. NTPC Ltd. (2016) 15
SCC 272 at 288, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2020 20:18:48 :::HCHP
21
various judgments including the judgment in Afcons
Infrastructure Ltd.(supra) and concluded as follows:
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC
651, it was held that judicial review of
government contracts was permissible in order to
prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. The
principles enunciated in this case are :
Mr. B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd vs Nair Coal Services Ltd. & Ors on 31 October, 2006
In support of such contention, reliance is placed
by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S.N. Joshi &
Sons Ltd. vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd. and others (2006)
11 SCC 548, more particularly, the observations made in
paragraphs No. 8, 24, 28, 66(v) and 69 and another
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tejas
Constructions and Infrastructure Private Limited vs.
Municipal Council, Sendhwa and another (2012) 6
SCC 464, more particularly, the observations made in
paragraphs No. 27 to 31.
Chairman, All Railway Rec. Board & Anr vs K. Shyam Kumar & Ors on 6 May, 2010
" M.S.Gill Reasoning
6.126.The impugned Circular cannot be assailed
on the basis of M. S. Gill test, for two reasons. First
is that in Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment
Board v. K. Shyam Kumar & Ors,(2010) 6 SCC
614, this court held that MS Gill test may not
always be applicable where larger public interest
is involved and that in such situations, additional
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2020 20:18:48 :::HCHP
31
grounds can be looked into for examining the
validity of an order. This was followed in PRP
.
Montecarlo Ltd vs Ntpc Ltd on 18 October, 2016
In Montecarlo Ltd. vs. NTPC Ltd. (2016) 15
SCC 272 at 288, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2020 20:18:48 :::HCHP
21
various judgments including the judgment in Afcons
Infrastructure Ltd.(supra) and concluded as follows:
M/S Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd vs Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 19 April, 2005
In Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. vs. Metcalfe
& Hodgkinson (P) Ltd.(2005) 6 SCC 138, it was
held that while exercising power of judicial review
in respect of contracts, the Court should concern
itself primarily with the question, whether there
has been any infirmity in the decision making
process. By way of judicial review, Court cannot
examine details of terms of contract which have
been entered into by public bodies or State.
Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa (2007) 14
SCC 517, it was held:
M/S Michigan Rubber(I) Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 August, 2012
In Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. vs. State of
Karnataka & Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 216, it was held
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2020 20:18:48 :::HCHP
14
that if State or its instrumentalities acted
reasonably, fairly and in public interest in
.