Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.25 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Orissa And Ors vs Harinarayan Jaiswal And Ors on 14 March, 1972
37. The Court notes that the validity of clauses such as the aforesaid one has
in fact been upheld by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Harinarayan
Jaiswal (supra) and the Allahabad High Court in City Infrastructure (India)
Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the last-mentioned decision, the High Court while
dealing with an identical tender condition, which conferred a right on the
17 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 17-11-2020 23:44:21 :::
CWP No. 14019 of 2020 and connected petitions. Page 18 of 21
government authority to "reject any tender/tender including the highest
tender/tender without assigning any reason", observed as under:
Caretel Infotech Ltd. vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 9 April, 2019
24. Fifthly, he submitted that the complaints were vague and
unsubstantiated. He contended that the finding of the committee, set up by
the FCI to look into the complaints, that Kulbir Singh had employed his sons
for an earlier contract and was remitting EPF for them during the period of
such contract, was erroneous. He referred to the terms and conditions of the
11 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 17-11-2020 23:44:21 :::
CWP No. 14019 of 2020 and connected petitions. Page 12 of 21
e-tender notices and submitted that there is no condition therein or even in
the MTF or in any other law, which prohibited a person from employing his
sons and remitting EPF for them. There was no requirement in the terms and
conditions of the e-tender notices which specified who the employees should
be or what the minimum number of such employees should be. In support of
his plea that the bidder was required to submit information as per the MTF
and not any general information, Mr. Bahl relied on the decision of the
Supreme Court in Caretel Infotech Ltd v. Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited AIR 2019 SC 3327.
M/S Brij Gopal Construction Co. Pvt. ... vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 8 December, 2014
26. Mr. Bahl accordingly submitted that the rejection of the technical bids of
both M/s. Kulbir Singh and Company as well as Lovepreet Singh were
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Placing reliance on
the decision of this Court in Brij Gopal Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State
of Haryana, AIR 2015 P&H 27 he submitted that since the rejection of the
technical bid was on arbitrary and irrational grounds, such rejection should
be set aside, the award of the contracts to the contesting Respondent No. 3 in
each of the petitions held to be illegal and, a fresh process for award of
contracts be initiated by the FCI.
Rashmi Metaliks Limited And Another vs The Kolkata Metropolitan Development ... on 2 July, 2013
In support of the plea that when none of the essential tender conditions
were violated, the tender could not be rejected, reliance was placed on the
decisions in Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development
Authority (2013) 10 SCC 95, Om Prakash Sharma v. Ramesh Chand
Prashar (2016) 12 SCC 632 and M.E. Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai 2019 (1) Mh. LJ 56.
Om Prakash Sharma vs Ramesh Chand Prashar & Ors on 13 May, 2016
In support of the plea that when none of the essential tender conditions
were violated, the tender could not be rejected, reliance was placed on the
decisions in Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development
Authority (2013) 10 SCC 95, Om Prakash Sharma v. Ramesh Chand
Prashar (2016) 12 SCC 632 and M.E. Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai 2019 (1) Mh. LJ 56.
M E Infrapjojects Pvt. Ltd. And Another vs Municipal Corporation For Greater ... on 3 September, 2018
In support of the plea that when none of the essential tender conditions
were violated, the tender could not be rejected, reliance was placed on the
decisions in Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development
Authority (2013) 10 SCC 95, Om Prakash Sharma v. Ramesh Chand
Prashar (2016) 12 SCC 632 and M.E. Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai 2019 (1) Mh. LJ 56.
City Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. ... vs New Okhla Industrial Development ... on 8 May, 2007
37. The Court notes that the validity of clauses such as the aforesaid one has
in fact been upheld by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Harinarayan
Jaiswal (supra) and the Allahabad High Court in City Infrastructure (India)
Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the last-mentioned decision, the High Court while
dealing with an identical tender condition, which conferred a right on the
17 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 17-11-2020 23:44:21 :::
CWP No. 14019 of 2020 and connected petitions. Page 18 of 21
government authority to "reject any tender/tender including the highest
tender/tender without assigning any reason", observed as under:
Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
In Jagdish Mandal (supra), the Supreme Court, after noticing the
judgment in Tata Cellular (supra) and the decisions rendered thereafter,
recapitulated the legal position as under: