Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.24 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Ulhasnagar Municipal ... on 8 May, 2000
6.2 In the case of Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs.
Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation
and Others reported in (2000) 5 SCC 287 it is observed
and held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the terms
and conditions in the tender are prescribed by the
Government bearing in mind the nature of contract and in
such matters the authority calling for the tender is the
best Judge to prescribe the terms and conditions of the
tender. It is further observed that it is not for the Courts to
say whether the conditions prescribed in the tender under
consideration were better than the one prescribed in the
earlier tender invitations. It is further observed and held
that the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to
judicial scrutiny, the same being in the realm of contract.
Air India Ltd. vs Cochin International Airport Ltd. on 31 January, 2000
[9.5] In the case of International Trading Co. and
Another (Supra), while emphasizing on national
priorities, the Honble Supreme Court has observed and
held in paras 22 and 23 as under:
Goldstone Infratech Limited vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 22 February, 2018
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to
hereinabove and the decisions of this Court in the case of
Page 41 of 42
C/SCA/7201/2018 JUDGMENT
Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited v. Union of India
And Ors. (supra) as well as Goldstone Infratech Limited
v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (supra), we are of the opinion
that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in
the present petition. It will not be open for the petitioner to
suggest the technical specifications which might suits him/it
and/or the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the
eligibility criteria / technical specifications which might not suit
the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the present petition
fails and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is, accordingly
dismissed.
Meerut Devt.Authority vs Association Of Management Studies & Anr on 17 April, 2009
9. Suffice it to say that in the matter of award of
contracts the Government and its agencies have to act
reasonably and fairly at all points of time. To that
extent the tenderer has an enforceable right in the Court
who is competent to examine whether the aggrieved
party has been treated unfairly or discriminated against
to the detriment of public interest. (See Meerut
Development Authority v. Assn. Of Management
Studies4 and Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International
Airport Ltd.
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
At this stage few
para No.82 of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court
in the case of Tata Cellular (Supra) are required to be
referred to and reproduced which are as under:
Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
[9.2] The Honble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish
Mandal vs. State of Orissa and others reported in
(2007)14 SCC 517 (Two Judges), reiterated the
aforesaid principles by stating that before interfering in a
tender and contractual matter, in exercise of its power of
judicial review, Court should pose itself the following
question:
Management Of Tractors And Farm ... vs Tafe Employees Union (R) on 18 March, 2011
8. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the petitioner
that such technical specification is specified with a view to aim
only one Company and it could be generic as per the
guidelines provided by the CVC is concerned, as observed and
held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited v. Union of India
And Ors. (supra), the guidelines provided by the CVC and/or
the Government can be said to be providing general
guidelines. It is further observed that if it is found
appropriate by the employer looking to the nature of work
and use, that some further conditions are required to be
imposed, it will always open to provide further eligibility
criteria. However such condition may not be perverse
and / or unreasonable that no prudent person would think
of imposing such condition. Even considering the eligibility
criteria and the technical specifications, it cannot be said
that insisting of touchscreen alarm system as per HTM02-
01 standard can be said to be specific. It can be said to be
generic. It depends upon the need of the employer - Hospital.
Lala Hari Chand Sarda vs Mizo District Council & Anr on 28 October, 1966
v. Regional Transport Authority5, Shree Meenakshi
Mills Ltd. v. Union of India6, Hari Chand Sarda v. Mizo
District Council7 and Krishnan Kakkanth v. Govt. of
Kerala8.)
[9.6] In the case of Global Energy Ltd. and Another
V/s. Adani Exports Ltd. and Others reported in
(2005)4 SCC 435, it was observed that unless terms of a
tender notice are wholly arbitrary, discriminatory or
actuated by malice are not subject to judicial review. It
was observed as under: