Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)
Manas Ranjan Rout vs State Of Odisha & Others ....... ... on 31 May, 2021 cites

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

"20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving the state instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court W.P.(C) No.21779 of 2019 Page 10 of 21 must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 312 - D Gupta - Full Document

Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006

18. Insofar as Condition No. 27 of the N.I.T. prescribing work experience of at least 5 years of not less than the value of Rs. 2 crores is concerned, suffice it to say that the expert body, being the Tender Opening Committee, consisting of four members, clearly found that this eligibility condition had been satisfied by the Appellant before us. Without therefore going into the assessment of the documents that have been supplied to this Court, it is well settled that unless arbitrariness or mala fide on the part of the tendering authority is alleged, the expert evaluation of a particular tender, particularly when it comes to technical evaluation, is not to be second-guessed by a writ court. Thus, in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517, this Court noted:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 887 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs M/S Anoj Kumar Agarwala on 23 January, 2019

15. Here, the Petitioner relies on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v. Anoj Kumar Garwala 2019 SCC OnLine SC 89. In the said case, one of the eligibility requirements was to furnish performance security in shape of Demand Draft/BG/FDR, which Res.No.2, the selected L-1 bidder, did not furnish for the specified period. The question was, whether it is possible for the appellant (tender inviting authorities) to condone the initial bank guarantee being given for an admittedly incorrect period. The Supreme Court after analyzing the tender conditions observed that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 49 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Poddar Steel Corporation vs Ganesh Engineering Works And Others on 6 May, 1991

In Poddar Steel Corpn. v. Ganesh Engg. Works [Poddar Steel Corpn. v. Ganesh Engg. Works, (1991) 3 SCC 273] this Court held as under: (SCC p. 276, para 6) "6. ... The requirements in a tender notice can be classified into two categories--those which lay down the essential conditions of eligibility and the others which are merely ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by the condition. In the first case the authority issuing the tender may be required to enforce them rigidly. In the other cases it must be open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance of the condition in appropriate cases."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 325 - L M Sharma - Full Document

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

"14. We must reiterate the words of caution that this Court has stated right from the time when Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] was decided W.P.(C) No.21779 of 2019 Page 18 of 21 almost 40 years ago, namely, that the words used in the tender documents cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous - they must be given meaning and their necessary significance. In this context, the use of the word "metro" in Clause 4.2(a) of Section III of the bid documents and its connotation in ordinary parlance cannot be overlooked.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 2519 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next