Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.36 seconds)The Information Technology Act, 2000
Maharashtra Housing Development ... vs Shapoorji Pallonji And Company Pvt. ... on 12 February, 2018
25.wp.10131-2024 & ors.odt
Development Authority vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private
Limited and Others1 relied on by Mr Chandurkar, learned Additional
Government Pleader has no application in the present facts as the same is
rendered in a fact situation where there was omission on the part of the
bidding party to press the 'freeze button' and as there was no technical
glitch in the system, amply demonstrated by the acknowledgments
generated in favour of other bidders, the bidding party was not held
entitled to any consideration of its other defective bid. In the facts of that
case it was found that the circumstances strongly indicated that the bid
submitted by the bidding party was not valid. Present is a case where the
tender is not commercial and it is purely technical for determining the
eligibility. Moreover, the NIC in its affidavit dated 13 th August 2024 had
confirmed that the Petitioner had made three calls before the deadline
and two calls after the deadline and also has provided transcripts of the
conversation between the Petitioner and the Help Desk.
G.J. Fernandez vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 1 February, 1990
25.wp.10131-2024 & ors.odt
"21. As a matter of law, there can be no two opinions that tender
conditions bind both the state agency which invites bids for goods and
services, as well as the potential supplier of those goods and services, i.e.
the tenderer/bidder. (Ref G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka; State
(NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjeev. Yet, Courts have had occasion to deal with
the question whether all conditions are to be strictly complied, or are
there some which are merely ancillary, and inessential and whose non-
State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Anr vs Sanjeev @ Bittoo on 4 April, 2005
25.wp.10131-2024 & ors.odt
"21. As a matter of law, there can be no two opinions that tender
conditions bind both the state agency which invites bids for goods and
services, as well as the potential supplier of those goods and services, i.e.
the tenderer/bidder. (Ref G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka; State
(NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjeev. Yet, Courts have had occasion to deal with
the question whether all conditions are to be strictly complied, or are
there some which are merely ancillary, and inessential and whose non-
Birla Ericsson Optical Ltd. & Anr. vs Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. on 11 July, 2013
25. We may refer with profit the observations of the Delhi High Court
in paragraph 21 of the decision in Birla Ericsson Optical Ltd. and
another vs. Bharat Broadband Network Ltd.2. Paragraph 21 reads
thus :-
1