Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.31 seconds)
Bulk Transportation Association vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 November, 2023 cites

Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006

17. The impugned tender notification is under challenge on the ground that the other companies have quoted a lesser benchmark rates compared to the price fixed by the respondent/Corporation while issuing the impugned tender notification. On perusal of the grounds urged in both the petitions, I am more than satisfied that -16- no valid grounds are made out which would invite judicial review at the hands of this Court. The Apex Court in the case of Jagadish Mandal vs. State of Orissa (supra) cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Corporation is squarely applicable to the present case on hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 887 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994

11. Placing reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Tata Cellular vs. Union of India (supra), he would point out that the Apex Court has held that the Courts cannot interfere with the Governments freedom of contract, invitation to tender and refusal of any tender which pertain to policy matter unless a foundation is laid that decision/action is vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3275 - S Mohan - Full Document

Sri. Lakshmikanth Raju vs Union Of India on 29 August, 2016

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.103396/2023 has vehemently argued and contended that judgment relied by the respondent/Corporation are not at all applicable to the present case on hand. She would point out that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lakshmikanth Raju and Others vs. Union of India and Another5 is not at all applicable as the facts are totally different. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is in fact relying on notification issued by the State Government as per Annexure-B. She would point out that the respondent/Corporation has not made any attempt to seek clarification from the State.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A S Bopanna - Full Document

National High Speed Rail Corporation ... vs Montecarlo Limited on 31 January, 2022

10. Placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (supra), he would contend that the Government and its State instrumentalities have freedom of contract. Any interference in tender matters may lead to heavy administrative burden on the administration and -11- lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. He would point out that the Apex Court in the said case held that any interference at the hands of the Courts may seriously impede the execution of the projects of public importance and displace the Corporation from discharging the legal obligation towards the citizen. He would point out that in both the petitions, the petitioners have not made out any arbitrariness which would seriously prejudice the rights of the petitioners. He would also point out that the grounds urged do not indicate that the impugned notification is actuated by malafides.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 91 - M R Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next