Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)
M/S.Kerala Feeds Limited vs Parumala Transport on 27 October, 2016 cites

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

In the case of Directorate of Education and others v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. and others [(2004) 4 SCC 19] the Apex Court, quoting the principles laid down in the cases of Tata Cellular and Air India Ltd.(supra), observed that the terms of the the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny the same being in the realm of contract. The government must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender. It must have reasonable play in its joints as a necessary concomitant for an administrative body in an administrative sphere. The courts would interfere with the administrative policy decision only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias. It is entitled to pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by the particular circumstances. The courts cannot strike down the terms of the tender prescribed by the government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 340 - G T Nanavati - Full Document

Directorate Of Education & Ors vs Educomp Datamatics Ltd. & Ors on 10 March, 2004

In the case of Directorate of Education and others v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. and others [(2004) 4 SCC 19] the Apex Court, quoting the principles laid down in the cases of Tata Cellular and Air India Ltd.(supra), observed that the terms of the the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny the same being in the realm of contract. The government must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender. It must have reasonable play in its joints as a necessary concomitant for an administrative body in an administrative sphere. The courts would interfere with the administrative policy decision only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias. It is entitled to pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by the particular circumstances. The courts cannot strike down the terms of the tender prescribed by the government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 95 - Full Document

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

In the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(2012) 8 SCC 216] the Supreme Court observed that if the objector failed to establish that the criteria fixed by the authority were contrary to public interest, discriminatory or unreasonable, no interference is called for. It was held that the Government and their undertakings must have free hands in setting terms of the tender and only if they are arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, would courts interfere. Nor would court interfere because it feels some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or more logical. Scope of Court's interference, is very restricted and limited where State acts reasonably, fairly and in public interest since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with Government. Therefore, interference by court is not warranted unless action of tendering authority is mala fide and is a misuse of statutory powers.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 623 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

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

7. Having regard to the aforementioned principles laid down by the Apex Courts consistently on the issue, we have examined the facts of this case in detail. The authority in this case thought it fit that criteria for obtaining tender for transporting the cattle feed should be at high standard and only those lorry owners who satisfy the eligibility criteria should be permitted to participate in the tender.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 887 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1