Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.78 seconds)
Bharti Tele-Tech Ltd. And Anr. vs Chief General Manager, ... on 19 December, 2001 cites

Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998

42. I have also considered the submissions on behalf of other respondents and also the cases of Tata Cellular v. Union of India (supra), Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. (supra), Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner (supra), Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (supra), (All judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court) and also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 782 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979

42.3 The learned author thereafter considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628, Kasturilal v. State of J. & K., AIR 1980 SC 1992, Tata Cellular (supra) and Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M. & N. Publications Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 51 and on page 483, of his book has observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 2519 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Ulhasnagar Municipal ... on 8 May, 2000

42. I have also considered the submissions on behalf of other respondents and also the cases of Tata Cellular v. Union of India (supra), Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. (supra), Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner (supra), Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (supra), (All judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court) and also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 324 - Full Document

Ramniklal N. Bhutta & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 1996

Collector, Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd., 1985(1) SCC 260, Tata Cellular v. Union of India, 1994(6) SCC 651, Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra, 1997( 1) SCC 134 and Raunaq International Ltd. v. I. V. R. Construction Ltd., 1999( 1) SCC 492. The award of a contract, whether it is by a private or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are of paramount and commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the Court can examine the decision making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. 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 power 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 intervene."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 576 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next