Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (0.32 seconds)
Khanna Paper Mills Ltd. Throug Jaimin M ... vs Gujarat State Board Of School Textbooks ... on 3 September, 2021 cites

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 vs. International Airport Authority of India [(1979) 3 SCC 489] was decided 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 Page 38 of 52 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 06 21:06:11 IST 2021 C/SCA/12149/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2021 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

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

In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818, it was held that a mere disagreement with the decision-making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional Court to interfere. The threshold of malafides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional Court interferes with the decision-making process or the decision. The owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 560 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994

43. Continuing in the vein of accepting the inherent authority of an employer to deviate from the terms and conditions of an NIT, and re-introducing the privilege-of- participation principle and the level playing field concept, this Court laid emphasis on the decision making process, particularly in respect of a commercial contract. One of the more significant cases on the subject is the three-judge decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 which gave importance to the lawfulness of a decision and not its soundness. If an administrative decision, such as a deviation in the terms of the NIT is not arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, malafide or biased, the Courts will not judicially review the decision taken. Similarly, the Courts will not countenance interference with the decision at the behest of an unsuccessful bidder in respect of a technical or procedural violation....
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3275 - S Mohan - Full Document

G.J. Fernandez vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 1 February, 1990

In G.J. Fernandez vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 488, both the principles laid down in Ramana Dayaram Shetty (supra) were reaffirmed. It was reaffirmed that the party issuing the tender (the employer) has "the right to Page 37 of 52 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 06 21:06:11 IST 2021 C/SCA/12149/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2021 punctiliously and rigidly" enforce the terms of the tender. If a party approaches a court for an order restraining the employer from strict enforcement of the terms of the tender, the court would decline to do so. It was also reaffirmed that the employer could deviate from the terms and conditions of the tender if the "changes affected all intending applicants alike and were not objectionable". Therefore, deviation from the terms and conditions is permissible so long as the level playing field is maintained and it does not result in any arbitrariness or discrimination in the Ramana Dayaram Shetty sense.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 274 - K N Saikia - Full Document

M/S Michigan Rubber(I) Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 August, 2012

It referred to its earlier decisions in Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 and M/s Michigan Rubber (I) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216, wherein the Court had opined that a decision which no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached, was also susceptible to challenge on that ground.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 623 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next