Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)
Sumeet Ssg Bvg Maharashtra Ems Pvt Ltd ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 8 April, 2025 cites

Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006

In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on JAGDISH MANDAL VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS 1, MICHIGAN 1 (2007) 14 SCC 517 Basavraj Page | 11 ::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2025 22:48:33 ::: 62.24-pil.docx RUBBER (INDIA) LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS2, N.G.PROJECTS LIMITED VS. VINOD KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS3, AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED VS.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 887 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. (Former ... vs The State Of Karnataka, Department Of ... on 13 September, 2007

In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on JAGDISH MANDAL VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS 1, MICHIGAN 1 (2007) 14 SCC 517 Basavraj Page | 11 ::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2025 22:48:33 ::: 62.24-pil.docx RUBBER (INDIA) LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS2, N.G.PROJECTS LIMITED VS. VINOD KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS3, AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED VS.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 163 - A J Gunjal - Full Document

Consortium Of: M/S Siemens ... vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd on 31 March, 2015

In SIEMENS AKTIENGESELEISCHAFT AND SIEMENS LIMITED VS. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED 2 (2012) 8 SCC 216 3 (2022) 6 SCC 127 4 (2016) 16 SCC 818 5 2023 SCC OnLine SC 671 6 (2005) 1 SCC 679 Basavraj Page | 12 ::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2025 22:48:33 ::: 62.24-pil.docx AND ORS.7, it was held that the tenders floated by the Government are amenable to judicial review only in order to prevent arbitrariness and favoritism and protect the financial interest of the State and public interest. Thus, the scope of judicial review is confined as to whether there was any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety Committed by the decision making authority. It has further been held that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the soundness of the decision made by the competent authority and the Court can only examine whether the decision making process is fair, reasonable, transparent and bona fide with no perceptible injury to public interest.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Centre For Public Interest Litigation vs U.O.I on 23 February, 2018

In CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION VS. UNION OF INDIA8, the Supreme Court held that minimal interference is called for by Courts in exercise of judicial review of a decision taken by the technical experts after due deliberations inasmuch as the Courts are not well equipped to fathom into such domain which is left to the discretion of the executive. It has further been held that primary and secondary purpose of review is to ensure that administrative bodies act in efficient, transparent, fair, unbiased manner and keep in forefront public interest.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 147 - A K Goel - Full Document
1