Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (2.38 seconds)The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs Amr Dev Prabha on 18 March, 2020
In Galaxy Transport Agencies (supra), it has been reiterated by referring to the earlier
decisions in Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra), Bharat Coking Coal Limited (supra),
Jagdish Mandal (supra) and Montecarlo Limited vs. NTPC Limited, (2016) 15 SCC 272 that
the authority who has authored the tender document, is the best person to understand and
appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The Constitutional Court must defer
to the said understanding and appreciation of the tender document and if two
interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be respected. In the
competitive commercial field the technical bids pursuant to the notice inviting tenders are
scrutinized by the technical experts in order to ensure objectivity. A bidder's expertise and
technical capability and capacity are assessed by the experts. It has, at the same time, been
emphasized that it does not mean that the tenders will escape scrutiny of judicial review.
Central Coalfieds Limited vs Sll-Sml (Joint Venture Consortium) . on 17 August, 2016
Page No.# 33/38
39.1. It has been observed in Central Coalfields Limited (supra) that the party issuing the
tender (the employer) has the right to enforce the terms of the tender strictly. If a party
approaches a Court for an order to restrain the employer from strict enforcement of the
terms of the tender, the Court would decline to do so. The Courts shall not countenance
interference with the decision of the employer at the behest of an unsuccessful bidder in
respect of a technical or procedural violation.
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr on 15 September, 2016
In Galaxy Transport Agencies (supra), it has been reiterated by referring to the earlier
decisions in Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra), Bharat Coking Coal Limited (supra),
Jagdish Mandal (supra) and Montecarlo Limited vs. NTPC Limited, (2016) 15 SCC 272 that
the authority who has authored the tender document, is the best person to understand and
appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The Constitutional Court must defer
to the said understanding and appreciation of the tender document and if two
interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be respected. In the
competitive commercial field the technical bids pursuant to the notice inviting tenders are
scrutinized by the technical experts in order to ensure objectivity. A bidder's expertise and
technical capability and capacity are assessed by the experts. It has, at the same time, been
emphasized that it does not mean that the tenders will escape scrutiny of judicial review.
M/S Galaxy Transport ... vs M/S New J.K. Roadways,Fleet Owners And ... on 18 December, 2020
In Galaxy Transport Agencies (supra), it has been reiterated by referring to the earlier
decisions in Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra), Bharat Coking Coal Limited (supra),
Jagdish Mandal (supra) and Montecarlo Limited vs. NTPC Limited, (2016) 15 SCC 272 that
the authority who has authored the tender document, is the best person to understand and
appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The Constitutional Court must defer
to the said understanding and appreciation of the tender document and if two
interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be respected. In the
competitive commercial field the technical bids pursuant to the notice inviting tenders are
scrutinized by the technical experts in order to ensure objectivity. A bidder's expertise and
technical capability and capacity are assessed by the experts. It has, at the same time, been
emphasized that it does not mean that the tenders will escape scrutiny of judicial review.
Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
In Galaxy Transport Agencies (supra), it has been reiterated by referring to the earlier
decisions in Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra), Bharat Coking Coal Limited (supra),
Jagdish Mandal (supra) and Montecarlo Limited vs. NTPC Limited, (2016) 15 SCC 272 that
the authority who has authored the tender document, is the best person to understand and
appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The Constitutional Court must defer
to the said understanding and appreciation of the tender document and if two
interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be respected. In the
competitive commercial field the technical bids pursuant to the notice inviting tenders are
scrutinized by the technical experts in order to ensure objectivity. A bidder's expertise and
technical capability and capacity are assessed by the experts. It has, at the same time, been
emphasized that it does not mean that the tenders will escape scrutiny of judicial review.
Montecarlo Ltd vs Ntpc Ltd on 18 October, 2016
43. From the discussion made above, this Court has found on a scrutiny of the RFP and
the Corrigendum together that two interpretations are not possible in respect of the Pre-
Qualification Criteria laid down therein. As only one interpretation is possible, the tendering
authority has left with no discretion to it to interpret the same in any other manner. The
basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is fairness in action by the State
or its instrumentalities and it is settled that non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the
heartbeat of fair play. The said principle is also applicable also in a competitive bidding
process. While it is true that the scope of judicial review in the matter of awarding contract
is limited it is also true that the State or its instrumentalities are to act reasonably, fairly and
in public interest in a tender process and consequently, in awarding contract. These actions
are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent for examining as to whether the State
or its instrumentalities have acted validly for a discernible reason and not in an irrational
manner by deviating from the standards laid down by themselves in the basic document like
the tender document. It is settled that the question whether the impugned action is
arbitrary or not is to be decided finally on the facts and circumstances of a given case and
the basic and obvious test to apply is to find out whether there is any discernible principle
emerging from the impugned action and if yes, whether it satisfied the test of
reasonableness. It is also settled that where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an act
and there is no impediment to follow the same, the deviation to act in a different manner
which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable, is to be termed as
arbitrary.
Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998
In Raunaq International Limited (supra), it has been observed that the award of a
contract is essentially a commercial transaction and in arriving at a commercial decision,
considerations which are of paramount importance are commercial considerations. One such
consideration is past experience of the bidder and whether the bidder has successfully
completed similar work earlier. In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India challenging award of a contract by a public authority or the State, the Court should not
interfere in disputes between two rival tenderers unless it is satisfied that there is a
substantial amount of public interest or the transaction is entered into mala fide. The Court
should also be circumspect in passing interim orders. When an evaluation committee of
experts is appointed to evaluate offers, the expert committee's special knowledge plays a
decisive role in deciding about the best offer. The Court should not substitute its own
decision for the decision of an expert evaluation committee.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1