Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
M/S Shree Enterprises Thru.Sanjay Jain vs National Fertilizers Limited on 22 February, 2018 cites

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

14. To support the aforesaid, he has drawn our attention to the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Maxima Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of MP reported in 2014 (II) MPWN 5, decision of Apex Court in the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka & others reported in 2012 (8) SCC 216 and submitted that in matters of formulating conditions of tenders and awarding contract, greater latitude is to be conceded to State authorities, unless action of tendering is malafide and is a misuse of statutory powers, interference by Court is not warranted. If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, interference by Court is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the government. The government and their undertakings must have a free hand in setting terms of the tender and only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide or actuated by bias, the Courts would interfere. The Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the government because it feels that some other terms in 6 W. P. No.2230 of 2017 the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 623 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 May, 2009

15. Lastly, he has drawn our attention to the law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam vs. Union of India & others reported in 2009 (7) SCC 561 wherein the Apex Court has held that a person, who had neither participated in the process of selection of consultant/developer nor had expressed desire to develop the port, filing writ petition to challenge the award of contract as arbitrary on the ground that the same was contrary to earlier decision of government to get feasibility report before making up development of the port is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 178 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Hindustan Development Corpn. And Ors on 15 April, 1993

20. He has further drawn our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & others vs. Hindustan Development Corporation & others reported in 1993 (3) SCC 499 and submitted that even if the petitioner had not participated in the tender, then he being the aggrieved person is entitled to invoke judicial review and prayed that the preliminary objection be overruled.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 545 - G N Ray - Full Document

M/S Maxima Traders Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2015

14. To support the aforesaid, he has drawn our attention to the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Maxima Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of MP reported in 2014 (II) MPWN 5, decision of Apex Court in the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka & others reported in 2012 (8) SCC 216 and submitted that in matters of formulating conditions of tenders and awarding contract, greater latitude is to be conceded to State authorities, unless action of tendering is malafide and is a misuse of statutory powers, interference by Court is not warranted. If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, interference by Court is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the government. The government and their undertakings must have a free hand in setting terms of the tender and only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide or actuated by bias, the Courts would interfere. The Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the government because it feels that some other terms in 6 W. P. No.2230 of 2017 the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - R Menon - Full Document

M/S Narmada Enterprises A ... vs The Madhya Pradesh Civil Supplies ... on 29 February, 2016

In the earlier round of litigation, question regarding eligibility of the petitioner for participation in tender was considered by us and we dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner on 11.01.2017 in W. P. No.1715/2016 (M/s Sri Enterprises vs. M. P State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & others). The order dated 11.01.2017 reads as under :-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1