Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)
M/S Hisar Construction Company vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 25 May, 2022 cites

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr on 15 September, 2016

52. In the present facts, it is clear that BCCL and India have laid recourse to Clauses of the NIT, whether it be to justify condonation of delay of Respondent No. 6 in submitting performance bank guarantees or their decision to resume auction on grounds of technical failure. BCCL having authored these documents, is better placed to appreciate their requirements and interpret them. (Afcons Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P. (C) 5646/2022 Page 13 of 17 By:RADHA BISHT Signing Date:02.06.2022 14:58:07 Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818)
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 560 - M B Lokur - Full Document

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 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
1