Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (1.15 seconds)Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
"14. We must reiterate the words of caution that this
Court has stated right from the time when Ramana
Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of
India [(1979) 3 SCC 489] was decided almost 40 years
ago, namely, that the words used in the tender
documents cannot be ignored or treated as redundant
or superfluous -- they must be given meaning and
their necessary significance. In this context, the use of
the word "metro" in Clause 4.2(a) of Section III of the
bid documents and its connotation in ordinary
parlance cannot be overlooked.
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
43. Continuing in the vein of accepting the inherent
authority of an employer to deviate from the terms and
conditions of an NIT, and re-introducing the privilege-of-
participation principle and the level playing field concept,
this Court laid emphasis on the decision making process,
particularly in respect of a commercial contract. One of the
Page 34 of 46
Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 01:48:36 IST 2022
C/SCA/6767/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2021
more significant cases on the subject is the three-judge
decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651
which gave importance to the lawfulness of a decision and
not its soundness. If an administrative decision, such as a
deviation in the terms of the NIT is not arbitrary, irrational,
unreasonable, malafide or biased, the Courts will not
judicially review the decision taken. Similarly, the Courts
will not countenance interference with the decision at the
behest of an unsuccessful bidder in respect of a technical or
procedural violation....
G.J. Fernandez vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 1 February, 1990
In G.J. Fernandez vs. State of Karnataka, reported in
(1990) 2 SCC 488, both the principles laid down in Ramana
Dayaram Shetty (supra) were reaffirmed. It was reaffirmed that
the party issuing the tender (the employer) has "the right to
punctiliously and rigidly" enforce the terms of the tender. If a
party approaches a court for an order restraining the employer
from strict enforcement of the terms of the tender, the court
would decline to do so. It was also reaffirmed that the employer
could deviate from the terms and conditions of the tender if the
"changes affected all intending applicants alike and were not
objectionable". Therefore, deviation from the terms and
conditions is permissible so long as the level playing field is
maintained and it does not result in any arbitrariness or
discrimination in the Ramana Dayaram Shetty sense.
M/S Michigan Rubber(I) Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 August, 2012
It
referred to its earlier decisions in Jagdish Mandal vs. State of
Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 and M/s Michigan Rubber (I) Ltd. vs.
State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216, wherein the Court had
opined that a decision which no responsible authority acting
reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have
reached, was also susceptible to challenge on that ground.
Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa, reported in (2007)
14 SCC 517, it was held:
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd vs Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 19 April, 2005
In Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. vs. Metcalfe &
Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., reported in (2005) 6 SCC 138, it was held
that while exercising power of judicial review in respect of
contracts, the Court should concern itself primarily with the
question, whether there has been any infirmity in the decision-
making process. By way of judicial review, the court cannot
examine the details of the terms of contract which have been
entered into by the public bodies or State.
The Companies Act, 1956
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr on 15 September, 2016
In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Nagpur Metro Rail
Corporation Ltd., reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818, it was held
that a mere disagreement with the decision-making process or
the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a
Page 39 of 46
Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 01:48:36 IST 2022
C/SCA/6767/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2021
constitutional Court to interfere. The threshold of malafides,
intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or
perversity must be met before the constitutional Court interferes
with the decision-making process or the decision. The owner or
the employer of a project, having authored the tender
documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its
requirements and interpret its documents. It is possible that the
owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the
tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional
Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the
interpretation given.