Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.23 seconds)The Companies Act, 2013
Consortium Of Titagarh Firema Adler ... vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd And ... on 9 May, 2017
In Consortium of Titagarh Firema Adler S.P.A. (supra), referred by the petitioner,
the decision in Tata Cellular (supra) has been referred to apart from other decisions to
observe that the modern trend is judicial restraint on administrative action and the role
of the Court is only to review the manner in which the decision has been taken. An
administrative decision can be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of
reasonableness to see whether it is free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or
actuated by mala fides. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is
Page 22 of 35
in public interest, the Court will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere
even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer is
made out.
Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs Additional Member, Board Of Revenue, ... on 19 October, 1962
In the above context, he has referred to the decisions in Udit Narain Singh
Malpaharia vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another, reported in
AIR 1963 SC 786; Prabodh Verma and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
reported in (1984) 4 SCC 251; Ranjan Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and others,
reported in (2014) 16 SCC 187; and Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra).
Prabodh Verma And Others, Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others. Etc on 27 July, 1984
In the above context, he has referred to the decisions in Udit Narain Singh
Malpaharia vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another, reported in
AIR 1963 SC 786; Prabodh Verma and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
reported in (1984) 4 SCC 251; Ranjan Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and others,
reported in (2014) 16 SCC 187; and Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra).
Rajeev Ranjan Kumar & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 April, 2018
In the above context, he has referred to the decisions in Udit Narain Singh
Malpaharia vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another, reported in
AIR 1963 SC 786; Prabodh Verma and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
reported in (1984) 4 SCC 251; Ranjan Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and others,
reported in (2014) 16 SCC 187; and Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra).
Central Coalfieds Limited vs Sll-Sml (Joint Venture Consortium) . on 17 August, 2016
The decision in Central Coalfields Limited (supra) has been referred to observe
Page 23 of 35
that in relation to a tender process, the Constitutional Courts can interfere a decision
as regards acceptance or rejection of the bid of a bidder if the decision is perverse.
The Constitutional Courts are expected to exercise restraint in interfering with the
administrative decision and ought not to substitute its view for that of the
administrative authority. A mere disagreement with the decision-making process or
the decision of the administrative authority is not a reason for a Constitutional Court
to interfere. The owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender
documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and
interpret its documents. The Constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding
and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in
the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender
conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an
interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the Constitutional
Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.
Caretel Infotech Ltd. vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 9 April, 2019
27.8. The decision in Caretel Infotech Limited (supra) has been referred to by the
respondents' side to emphasize as regards the extent to which scrutiny of tenders in
writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is permissible. It has
been held therein to the effect that normally, the parties would be governed by their
contracts and the tender terms. In view of Government and public sector enterprises
venturing into economic activities, the Supreme Court of India has found it appropriate
to build in certain checks and balances of fairness in procedure. Observing that the
window has been opened too wide by challenging every small or big tender nowadays
in writ proceedings almost as a matter of routine, it has been cautioned that an
unnecessary and close scrutiny of minute details, contrary to the view of the tendering
authority, has made awarding of contracts by Government and public sector enterprise
a cumbersome exercise, with long drawn out litigation at the threshold. By making a
comparison with the promptness and efficiency levels in respect of private contracts it
has been observed that such close scrutiny has tended to make the tenders of the
public sector a non-competitive exercise to the great disadvantage to the Government
and the public sector. The object cannot be that in every contract, where some parties
would lose out, they should get the opportunity to somehow pick holes, to disqualify
the successful parties, on grounds on which even the party floating the tender finds
no merit.
The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019
27.5. The decisions in Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra) and Silppi Constructions
Contractors (supra) have been referred to and relied on by both the parties.
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors on 20 September, 2005
In this connection, he has referred to the decisions in Hindustan
Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur Chennai and others, reported in (2005) 7 SCC
627; Rashmi Metaliks Limited and another vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development
Authority and others, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 95; State of Punjab vs. Bandeep Singh
and others, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724; and T.P. Senkumar, IPS vs. Union of India
and others, reported in (2017) 6 SCC 801. In all these decisions, it has been observed
that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must contain the reasons
which led the authority in taking such decision and it is not permissible for the authority
thereafter to take resort to any other additional reasons.