Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.29 seconds)
Renew Vayu Energy Private Limited vs Union Of India Through Ministry Of ... on 9 January, 2023
cites
Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
[Refer: Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517; Michigan
Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216; Ranaq
International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 492
etc.]
Central Coalfieds Limited vs Sll-Sml (Joint Venture Consortium) . on 17 August, 2016
This was confirmed in Jagdish Mandal v.
State of Orissa [Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa,
(2007) 14 SCC 517] as mentioned in Central
Coalfields [Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint
Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622 : (2016) 4
SCC (Civ) 106 : (2016) 8 Scale 99] .
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr on 15 September, 2016
18. The Apex Court in Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro
Rail Corporation Limited & Anr., (2016) 16 SCC 818, has observed as
under:-
Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons vs Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 27 April, 1989
In Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Port of
Bombay [Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Port of
Bombay, (1989) 3 SCC 293] it was held that the
constitutional courts are concerned with the decision-
making process.
Air India Ltd. vs Cochin International Airport Ltd. on 31 January, 2000
16. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and
agencies have a public duty to be fair to all concerned.
Even when some defect is found in the decision-making
process, the court must exercise its discretionary
power under Article 226 with great caution and should
exercise them only in furtherance of public interest and
not merely on the making out of a legal point. The
court should always keep the larger public interest in
mind in order to decide whether its intervention is
called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion
that overwhelming public interest requires
interference, the court should interfere. (See the
judgment in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International
Airport Ltd. [Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International
Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617])"
The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019
20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments
referred to above is the exercise of restraint and
caution; the need for overwhelming public interest to
justify judicial intervention in matters of contract
involving the State instrumentalities; the courts
should give way to the opinion of the experts unless
the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the
court does not sit like a court of appeal over the
appropriate authority; the court must realise that the
authority floating the tender is the best judge of its
requirements and, therefore, the court's interference
should be minimal. The authority which floats the
contract or tender, and has authored the tender
documents is the best judge as to how the documents
have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are
possible then the interpretation of the author must be
accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent
arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or
perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal
with the present case." (emphasis supplied)
M/S N.G. Projects Limited vs M/S Vinod Kumar Jain on 21 March, 2022
In N.G. Projects Limited v. Vinod Kumar Jain and Ors., (2022) 6
SCC 127, the Apex Court has held as under:-