Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.34 seconds)
Gurudatta Infrastructures Through ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 18 December, 2019
cites
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors vs Om Prakash Sharma on 18 April, 2013
In the case of M.P. Oil Extraction (supra) it was held
that although to ensure fair play and transparency in state action,
distribution of largesse by inviting open tenders or by public action is
25 desirable. It cannot be held that in no case distribution of such largesse
by negotiation is permissible.
Meerut Devt.Authority vs Association Of Management Studies & Anr on 17 April, 2009
28.2. Madras City Wine Merchants Association (supra),
10 was a case of change in policy for grant of liquor vending licence, by
way of statutory provisions, Rule notifications, which was
challenged on the plea of being violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, wherein it was held that the doctrine of
legitimate expectation arises only in the field of administrative
15 decisions. If the plea of legitimate expectation relates to procedural
fairness there is no possibility whatever of invoking the doctrine as
against the legislation as otherwise the power of the state will be
fettered not to repeal a particular law, however much public interest
may require the repeal. The principle of non-arbitrariness cannot
20 also apply to a change of policy by legislation.
Rajasthan Housing Board And Another vs G.S. Investments And Another on 31 October, 2006
In Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and
10 others Vs. Om Prakash Sharma, (2013) 5 SCC 182, relying
upon the law as laid down in (a) Meerut Development Authority
Vs. Association of Management Studies, (2009) 6 SCC 171 (b)
Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. G.S. Investments, (2007) 1 SCC
477, (c) State of Orissa Vs. Harinarayan Jaiswal, (1972) 2 SCC
15 36, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus:
State Of Orissa And Ors vs Harinarayan Jaiswal And Ors on 14 March, 1972
In view of the law laid down by this Court in
the aforesaid decisions, the learned Senior Counsel
Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi has rightly placed reliance upon
the same in support of the case of the first defendant,
20 which would clearly go to show that the plaintiff had
not acquired any right and no vested right has been
accrued in his favour in respect of the plot in question
merely because his bid amount is highest and he had
deposited 20% of the highest bid amount along with
25 the earnest money with the Board. In the absence of
acceptance of bid offered by the plaintiff to the
competent authority of the first defendant, there is no
concluded contract in respect of the plot in
question......."
The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019
In this regard we may with benefit quote the principles
as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering a number
of judgments on the point, in Silppi Constructions Contractors
v. Union of India and Another, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.
5 13802-13805 of 2019, decided on June 21, 2019 [2019 SCC OnLine
SC 1133 ] which are as under :
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
In Tata Cellular v. Union of India3, it was held
that judicial review of government contracts was
permissible in order to prevent arbitrariness or
10 favouritism. The principles enunciated in this case are
:--
Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998
In Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R.
Construction Ltd.4, this Court held that superior
courts should not interfere in matters of tenders
unless substantial public interest was involved or the
15 transaction was mala fide.