Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.71 seconds)
Bundel Khand Advertising Association ... vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others on 8 March, 2018 cites

Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994

The Supreme Court, after referring to its previous decision in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489, Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 568, CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985) 1 SCC 260, Tata Cellullar v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharastra (1997) 1 SCC 134 and Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V. R. Construction Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 492 held that the power of judicial review under Article 226 in contractual matters is to be exercised with great caution and only and only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The ultimate consideration to be kept in mind is larger public interest and the interference by the court should be limited only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires such an action. The other important principle laid down is that the State is free to choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender; it is free to enter into negotiation before finally deciding to accept one of the offers; price need not be the sole criterion for awarding a contract; it is free to relax any terms of the contract, if the tender condition permit such a relaxation, provided the power is exercised for bonafide reason. The courts can examine the decision making process and interfere with it only if it is found to be vitiated by malafide, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The relevant observations made in this regard are as under :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3275 - S Mohan - Full Document

M/S Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd on 30 September, 2016

16.3 Mr. Khan also placed reliance on M/s Voestalpine Schienen GMBH Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. AIR 2017 SC 939, wherein the issue that fell for consideration by the Supreme Court was whether the names proposed to be appointed as arbitrator by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. comprised of persons who were ineligible to act as Arbitrator in view of Sub-Section (5) of Section 12 read with the Seventh Schedule. Sub-section (5) of Section 12 which was inserted by Act No.3 of 2016 with retrospective effect from 23.10.2015 provides that:-
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 290 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next