Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.91 seconds)
Ritu Yadav vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 July, 2024 cites

Haryana Urban Dev. Authority & Ors vs Orchid Infrastructure Developers ... on 27 January, 2017

"8. The Apex Court also in Orchid Infrastructure's case (supra) examined the issue of the competency of the Administrator to accept or reject the bid and also the issue whether there was legality regarding the rejection of the bid and held that any action where there are sufficient reasons to indicate the stand of the authorities and there are valid reasons and on account of public money being involved, interference should be minimal. The relevant portion reads thus:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 104 - A Mishra - Full Document

Kalu Ram Ahuja & Anr vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 25 August, 2008

31. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in Kalu Ram Ahuja & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. (2008) 10 SCC 696 in which this Court has laid down that the highest bid was rejected without assigning any reason and there was no record showing that the decision was based on rational and tangible reasons and was in public interest. In the instant case we are satisfied from the order that the reports were considered and what were the reports, has been made clear in the reply filed by the respondents which has not been controverted. In the instant case merely the bid being above the reserve price, was not a safe criteria to accept the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors vs Om Prakash Sharma on 18 April, 2013

15. We are fortified in our view by a decision of this Court in Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma (2013) 5 SCC 182, the questions arose for its consideration that : whether there is any vested right upon the plaintiff/bidder until the bid is accepted by the competent authority in relation to the property in question? Merely because the plaintiff is the highest bidder by depositing 20% of the bid amount without there being approval of the same by the competent authority and it amounts to a concluded contract in relation to the plot in question; and whether the plaintiff could have maintained the 19 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 31-07-2024 02:04:24 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:095177-DB CWP-15951-2024 -20- suit in the absence of a concluded contract ? Considering the aforesaid questions, this Court has discussed the matter thus :
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 115 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Surja Ram vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 13 February, 1984

10. The Full Bench of this Court in Surja Ram vs. State of Haryana and another, 1984 PLR 584 held that there had to be reasons for refusing the non-acceptance of the bid and such reasons may not have to be disclosed to the highest bidder but the Court can ask for them to be made available and find out whether the same are relevant and germane to the non-acceptance to the bid.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1   2 Next