Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.56 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Air India vs Cochin International Airport Ltd on 31 January, 2000
Air India Ltd v. Cochin International Airport Limited (2000) 2 SCC 617.
Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
33. Such a proposition has been noticed by this Court even earlier in
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa6 in the following words:
Maa Binda Express Carrier And Anr vs Northeast Frontier Railway And Ors on 29 November, 2013
Page | 21
case has been on the fact that at 1:03PM on 05.05.2015 it was
declared the lowest bidder (or L1). However, being declared the L1
bidder does not bestow upon any entity a public law entitlement to
award of the contract, as noted in Maa Binda Express Carrier v.
NorthEast Frontier Railway9:
Ram And Shyam Company vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 8 May, 1985
23. On the other side, Respondent No. 1 claimed that it had been
declared as the lowest bidder (L1) by virtue of automatic conclusion of
the auction process at 1:03PM, post which any resumption was
impermissible and contrary to contractual terms. Further, a colour
was sought to be cast, by claiming that such resumption was to
benefit particular parties. The refusal of BCCL to accept the new bid
which was more than Rs 400 crores less than the previous offer was
claimed to demonstrate this. Per AMRDev Prabha, public interest
ought to be prioritised, which according to Ram and Shyam Co v.
State of Haryana3 would entail that the State instrumentality accept
the best available price, irrespective of formal technicalities.
Central Coalfieds Limited vs Sll-Sml (Joint Venture Consortium) . on 17 August, 2016
Central Coalfields Ltd v. SLLSML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622
Page | 26
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr on 15 September, 2016
54. In light of the above discussion, the appeal filed by Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd, as well as connected appeals filed by M/s RK
Transport and M/s C1 India Pvt Ltd, are allowed. Resultantly, the
13
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, (2016) 16 SCC
818 at ¶ 15.
M/S. Shobikaa Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs Central Medical Services Society . on 20 September, 2016
In Shobikaa Impex (P)
Ltd. v. Central Medical Services Society11, it has been noted that:
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
30. This position of law has been succinctly summed up in Tata
Cellular v. Union of India (supra), where it was famously opined
that:
1