Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.45 seconds)
Sampath vs The Director Of Municipal ... on 21 June, 2018 cites

Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979

11.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further relied upon an unreported decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in M/s.MSPL Gases Limited, represented by senior manager vs. M/s.Steel Authority of India Limited through its Executive Director (Operations) and others (W.P.Nos.6425 and 6426 of2008 dated 31.07.2008) wherein the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. The International Airport Authority of India and others was relied upon and the principles stated by Honourable Supreme Court regarding locus standi in similar circumstances is reiterated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 2519 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

West Bengal State Electricity Board vs Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. & Ors on 15 January, 2001

28. Mr.Krishnamani submitted that the security money was deposited only on 14.11.2005 and the annual license fee was paid on 24.11.2005. Hence he submitted that clause 7.1 to the tender conditions was violated. He has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in W.B. State Electricity Board v. Patel Engg. Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 S.C.C. 451 and R.D. Shetty v. Internaional Airport Authority of India .
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 342 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs Chief Executive Officer, Noida & Ors. ... on 29 April, 2014

28. Mr.Krishnamani submitted that the security money was deposited only on 14.11.2005 and the annual license fee was paid on 24.11.2005. Hence he submitted that clause 7.1 to the tender conditions was violated. He has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in W.B. State Electricity Board v. Patel Engg. Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 S.C.C. 451 and R.D. Shetty v. Internaional Airport Authority of India .
Competition Commission of India Cites 7 - Cited by 849 - Full Document

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

"The law relating to award of contract by the State and public sector corporations was reviewed in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and it was held that the award of a contract, whether by a private party or by a State, is essentially a commercial transaction. It can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It was further held that the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the 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 powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it 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
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 806 - Full Document
1