Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (0.60 seconds)
Larsen And Toubro Ltd vs Sjvn Thermal (P) Ltd. And Ors on 30 April, 2019 cites

Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998

85. After referring to the aforementioned judgments in the case of Tata Cellular (supra) and M/s Raunaq International Ltd. (supra), their Lordships referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Patna High Court CWJC No.4681 of 2019 dt. 30-04-2019 74/91 Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. International Trading Company reported in (2003) 5 SCC 437.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 782 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Punjab Transport Company vs Western Coalfield Limited on 29 October, 2015

98. To this Court it appears that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shapoorji Pallonji (supra) and that of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in G.K. Transport (supra) are well distinguishable and the Court accepts the submissions of learned senior counsel for the respondents that in both the cases not only the facts were different but were also a contest between the employer on the one hand and the bidder who had failed to submit the bid on time on the other hand. In this case the employer is contesting with the petitioner who is challenging the entry of R- 4 after extension of time.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Rajasthan Housing Board And Another vs G.S. Investments And Another on 31 October, 2006

"13. In case of a tender, there is no obligation on the part of the person issuing tender notice to accept any of the tenders or even the lowest tender. After a tender is called for and on seeing the rates or the status of the contractors who have given tenders that there is no competition, the person issuing tender may decide not to enter into any contract and thereby cancel the tender. It is well-settled that so long as the bid has not been accepted, the highest bidder acquires no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour (vide Laxmikant and Ors. v. Satyawan 5; Rajasthan Housing Board v. G.S. Investments 3 and U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad and Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma 4."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 165 - G P Mathur - Full Document

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

"13. In case of a tender, there is no obligation on the part of the person issuing tender notice to accept any of the tenders or even the lowest tender. After a tender is called for and on seeing the rates or the status of the contractors who have given tenders that there is no competition, the person issuing tender may decide not to enter into any contract and thereby cancel the tender. It is well-settled that so long as the bid has not been accepted, the highest bidder acquires no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour (vide Laxmikant and Ors. v. Satyawan 5; Rajasthan Housing Board v. G.S. Investments 3 and U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad and Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma 4."
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 115 - V G Gowda - Full Document

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

"Unfortunately, this Court in Poddar Steel 3 did not at all advert to the privilege-of-participation principle laid down in Ramana Dayaram Shetty5 and accepted in G.J. Fernandez6. In other words, this Court did not consider whether, as a result of the deviation, others could also have become eligible to participate in the bidding process. This principle was ignored in Poddar Steel.3"
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 325 - L M Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next