Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.44 seconds)
Piyushkumar Sheth vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 June, 2021 cites

Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Ulhasnagar Municipal ... on 8 May, 2000

5. Shri Pushyamitra Bhargav, learned Additional Advocate General opposed the prayer by contending that various clauses of N.I.T. namely 2.1.11, 3.3, 3.7 and 3.8 permit the respondents to cancel Writ Petition No.9780/2021 3 the tender at any stage. No right has been created in favour of the petitioner. A conscious decision was taken at apex level which is reflected in the letter dated 28.05.2021 to cancel the tender which cannot said to be arbitrary, malicious and capricious in nature. Moreso, when petitioner was admittedly the single person who submitted his bid. Reliance is placed on certain judgments namely (2012) 8 SCC 216 (Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v/s The State of Karnataka, (2000) 5 SCC 287 (Monarch Infrastructure (P) Limited v/s Commissioner Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation & Others) and MANU/KA80618/2009 (Mahendra Labs Pvt. Ltd. v/s Principal Secretary to Government Animal Husbandry and Fishries Department).
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 324 - Full Document

Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994

9. This is trite that in matters of contract the scope of interference by this Court is limited. This Court cannot sit in appeal on the decision of the department unless such a decision is shown to be arbitrary, capricious or malicious in nature or it attracts wednesbury principles. (See:- Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 and Elektron Lighting Systems (P) Ltd. vs. Shah Investments Financial Developments & Consultants (P) Ltd., (2015) 15 SCC 137, Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd., (1993) 1 Writ Petition No.9780/2021 4 SCC 44, Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 138, Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216 )
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3275 - S Mohan - Full Document

Elektron Lighting Systems Pvt Ltd And ... vs Shah Investments Financials ... on 20 November, 2015

9. This is trite that in matters of contract the scope of interference by this Court is limited. This Court cannot sit in appeal on the decision of the department unless such a decision is shown to be arbitrary, capricious or malicious in nature or it attracts wednesbury principles. (See:- Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 and Elektron Lighting Systems (P) Ltd. vs. Shah Investments Financial Developments & Consultants (P) Ltd., (2015) 15 SCC 137, Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd., (1993) 1 Writ Petition No.9780/2021 4 SCC 44, Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 138, Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216 )
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 23 - P C Pant - Full Document

Sterling Computers Limited Etc vs M & N Publications Limited And Ors on 12 January, 1993

9. This is trite that in matters of contract the scope of interference by this Court is limited. This Court cannot sit in appeal on the decision of the department unless such a decision is shown to be arbitrary, capricious or malicious in nature or it attracts wednesbury principles. (See:- Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 and Elektron Lighting Systems (P) Ltd. vs. Shah Investments Financial Developments & Consultants (P) Ltd., (2015) 15 SCC 137, Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd., (1993) 1 Writ Petition No.9780/2021 4 SCC 44, Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 138, Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216 )
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 386 - N P Singh - Full Document

M/S Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd vs Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 19 April, 2005

9. This is trite that in matters of contract the scope of interference by this Court is limited. This Court cannot sit in appeal on the decision of the department unless such a decision is shown to be arbitrary, capricious or malicious in nature or it attracts wednesbury principles. (See:- Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 and Elektron Lighting Systems (P) Ltd. vs. Shah Investments Financial Developments & Consultants (P) Ltd., (2015) 15 SCC 137, Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd., (1993) 1 Writ Petition No.9780/2021 4 SCC 44, Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 138, Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216 )
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 388 - G P Mathur - Full Document

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

9. This is trite that in matters of contract the scope of interference by this Court is limited. This Court cannot sit in appeal on the decision of the department unless such a decision is shown to be arbitrary, capricious or malicious in nature or it attracts wednesbury principles. (See:- Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 and Elektron Lighting Systems (P) Ltd. vs. Shah Investments Financial Developments & Consultants (P) Ltd., (2015) 15 SCC 137, Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd., (1993) 1 Writ Petition No.9780/2021 4 SCC 44, Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 138, Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216 )
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 623 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

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

10. Interference can also be made if decision runs contrary to the public interest. (See:- Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492, Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617, Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517, Reliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 1, Sanjay Kumar Shukla v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., (2014) 3 SCC 493 and Siemens Aktiengeselischaft & Siemens Ltd. v. DMRC Ltd., (2014) 11 SCC 288).
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 782 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Air India vs Cochin International Airport Ltd on 31 January, 2000

10. Interference can also be made if decision runs contrary to the public interest. (See:- Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492, Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617, Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517, Reliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 1, Sanjay Kumar Shukla v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., (2014) 3 SCC 493 and Siemens Aktiengeselischaft & Siemens Ltd. v. DMRC Ltd., (2014) 11 SCC 288).
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 340 - G T Nanavati - Full Document

Reliance Energy Limited & Another vs Maharashtra State Road Development ... on 11 September, 2007

10. Interference can also be made if decision runs contrary to the public interest. (See:- Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492, Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617, Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517, Reliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 1, Sanjay Kumar Shukla v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., (2014) 3 SCC 493 and Siemens Aktiengeselischaft & Siemens Ltd. v. DMRC Ltd., (2014) 11 SCC 288).
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 249 - Full Document
1   2 Next