Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.27 seconds)Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr on 15 September, 2016
v. Afcons Infrastructure Limited versus Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited
and another: [(2016) 16 SCC 818]
A perusal of the judgment cited by the learned Advocate General shows that
the line of decisions cited in the case of Montecarlo Limited (supra) enunciate the
principle of law that in a contract of commercial nature, the courts should refrain from
exercising the powers of judicial review even if there is a procedural aberration or
error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer leaving it to the employer of the project
24
having authored the tender documents to understand and appreciate its requirements
and interpret its document, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding
or appreciation in the application of the terms of the tender conditions.
Montecarlo Ltd vs Ntpc Ltd on 18 October, 2016
[See: Montecarlo Limited versus National
Thermal Power Corporation Limited [(2016) 15 SCC 272, para 26].
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
(3) SCR 105] and
also in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi versus Union of India and others [(1995) 6
SCC 749] as also in the case of Shangrila Food Products Ltd And Another versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another [(1996) 5 SCC 54]. Since the
award of work in favour of the private Respondent M/s Agarwal Global Infratech Pvt.
Ltd / appellant herein was found to be flawed on grounds of arbitrariness in matters of
qualification in technical bid, the consequential action to award the work in its favour
could not have been upheld since it would amount to allowing the appellant M/s
Agarwal Global Infratech Pvt. Ltd to enjoy the fruits of a wrong decision. The course
28
adopted by the learned single Judge to direct the Respondent State to call for a fresh
tender for award of the work in such circumstances, does not call for any interference.
Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
ii. Sterling Computers Limited versus M/s M&N Publications Limited and
others: [(1993) 1 SCC 445]
iii. Jagdish Mandal versus State of Orissa and others: [(2007) 14 SCC 517]
iv. Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. Versus Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. And
another: [(2005) 6 SCC 138]:
Mangt. Of Narendra & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Workmen Of Narendra & Co on 4 January, 2016
29. Having regard to the discussions made hereinabove, the view taken by the
learned single Judge cannot be said to be erroneous in the eye of law in the light of
scope and powers of judicial review for interference in contractual matters. This Court
sitting in appeal is not supposed to substitute its own views if the findings of the
learned single Judge do not suffer from perversity. It is profitable to rely upon the
observation made by the Apex Court in the case of B. Venkatamuni versus C.J.
Ayodhya Ram Singh and others [(2006) 13 SCC 449, para-11 & 12] as also
observed in the case of Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited
versus Workmen of Narendra & Company [(2016) 3 SCC 340, para-5], relevant
part of which is quoted hereunder:
B. Venkatamuni vs C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh & Ors on 19 October, 2006
29. Having regard to the discussions made hereinabove, the view taken by the
learned single Judge cannot be said to be erroneous in the eye of law in the light of
scope and powers of judicial review for interference in contractual matters. This Court
sitting in appeal is not supposed to substitute its own views if the findings of the
learned single Judge do not suffer from perversity. It is profitable to rely upon the
observation made by the Apex Court in the case of B. Venkatamuni versus C.J.
Ayodhya Ram Singh and others [(2006) 13 SCC 449, para-11 & 12] as also
observed in the case of Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited
versus Workmen of Narendra & Company [(2016) 3 SCC 340, para-5], relevant
part of which is quoted hereunder:
Shangrila Food Products Ltd. & Anr vs Life Insurance Corporation Of Indiaand ... on 9 July, 1996
(3) SCR 105] and
also in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi versus Union of India and others [(1995) 6
SCC 749] as also in the case of Shangrila Food Products Ltd And Another versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another [(1996) 5 SCC 54]. Since the
award of work in favour of the private Respondent M/s Agarwal Global Infratech Pvt.
Ltd / appellant herein was found to be flawed on grounds of arbitrariness in matters of
qualification in technical bid, the consequential action to award the work in its favour
could not have been upheld since it would amount to allowing the appellant M/s
Agarwal Global Infratech Pvt. Ltd to enjoy the fruits of a wrong decision. The course
28
adopted by the learned single Judge to direct the Respondent State to call for a fresh
tender for award of the work in such circumstances, does not call for any interference.
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
33. Learned counsel for the Respondent joint venture M/s Ramiya-HS (JV) (P-2)
has contended that Clause 2.7.1 is the ground of rejection and the same could not have
been supplemented by the Respondent State by way of a counter affidavit by placing
reliance upon Clause 2.6.8 of SBD in the light of the principle laid down in the case of
Mohinder Singh Gill and Another versus The Chief Election Commissioner, New
Delhi and Others [(1978) 1 SCC 405] reiterated in the case of United Air Travel
Services through its Proprietor A.D.M. Anwar Khan Versus Union of India
through Secretary (Ministry of External Affairs) [(2018) 8 SCC 141]. It is true that
construction of terms of the NIT is best left to the employer i.e. author of the tender
document especially when the tender is of highly complex technical specification. But
that does not mean that these tenders will escape scrutiny of judicial review. Exercise
of power of judicial review would be called for if the approach is arbitrary or mala
fide or procedure adopted is meant to favour one. The decision making process should
clearly show that the said maladies are kept at bay. But where a decision is taken that
is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserves the
purpose for which the tender is floated, the court should follow the principle of
restraint. Technical evaluation or comparison by the court would be impermissible.
The principle that is applied to scan and understand an ordinary instrument relatable
to contract in other spheres has to be treated differently than interpreting and
appreciating tender documents relating to technical works and projects requiring
specific skills. The owner should be allowed to carry out the purpose and there has to
be allowance of free play in the joints.
West Bengal State Electricity Board vs Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. & Ors on 15 January, 2001
In support thereof, learned senior counsel for the appellant M/s Agarwal has
relied upon the following decisions: W.B. State Electricity Board versus Patel
Engineering Co. Ltd. And others [(2001) 2 SCC 451]; Glodyne Technoserve
Limited Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [(2011) 5 SCC 103]; Bakshi
Security and Personnel Services Private Limited versus Devkishan Computed
Private Limited and others [(2016) 8 SCC 446]. He has also placed reliance upon
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Galaxy Transport Agencies
Contractors, Traders, Transports and Suppliers Versus New J.K. Roadways,
Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors and Others [2020 SCC Online SC
1035] which lays down that interpretation of the tender conditions should not be
second guessed by the courts in place of the authority framing the tender document,
unless it is mala fide.