Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)M/S Michigan Rubber(I) Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 August, 2012
8. The learned departmental counsel had produced a copy of the
written instructions dated 12.06.2023 received from the Director, IWT, Assam
wherein it was stated that the respondent no. 7 had defaulted in paying first
kist money for the second year and had not come forward to execute the lease
agreement for the second year i.e. for a period from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024
Page No.# 5/10
and therefore, the said ferry service was being run departmentally and
moreover, the Executive Engineer, IWT has initiated steps to invoke Clause
27(III) of the Control and Management of Ferries Rule, 1968. However, on legal
principles, the learned standing counsel for the IWT Department has referred to
the following cases, viz., (i) Cartel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. & Ors., (2019) 14 SCC 81 , (ii) Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v.
State of Karnataka & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 216 , (iii) Tata Cellular v. Union of India,
(1994) 6 SCC 651, and (iv) Ridley Life Science Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam &
Anr., 2020 (1) GLT 273.
Ridley Life Science Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 14 November, 2019
8. The learned departmental counsel had produced a copy of the
written instructions dated 12.06.2023 received from the Director, IWT, Assam
wherein it was stated that the respondent no. 7 had defaulted in paying first
kist money for the second year and had not come forward to execute the lease
agreement for the second year i.e. for a period from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024
Page No.# 5/10
and therefore, the said ferry service was being run departmentally and
moreover, the Executive Engineer, IWT has initiated steps to invoke Clause
27(III) of the Control and Management of Ferries Rule, 1968. However, on legal
principles, the learned standing counsel for the IWT Department has referred to
the following cases, viz., (i) Cartel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. & Ors., (2019) 14 SCC 81 , (ii) Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v.
State of Karnataka & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 216 , (iii) Tata Cellular v. Union of India,
(1994) 6 SCC 651, and (iv) Ridley Life Science Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam &
Anr., 2020 (1) GLT 273.
Karpagam Faculty Of Medicl Sciences And ... vs Union Of India on 14 September, 2017
In support of the said
contention, the case of Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences and Research v.
Union of India & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 568 (para 22) was referred to. Moreover, it
was submitted that the correctness of the decision of the tendering authority to
accept market value cannot be examined by the Court and in this connection,
the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India & Anr., (2020) 16
Page No.# 6/10
SCC 489 (para 20) was cited.
The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019
In support of the said
contention, the case of Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences and Research v.
Union of India & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 568 (para 22) was referred to. Moreover, it
was submitted that the correctness of the decision of the tendering authority to
accept market value cannot be examined by the Court and in this connection,
the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India & Anr., (2020) 16
Page No.# 6/10
SCC 489 (para 20) was cited.