Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.31 seconds)Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986
The decision in Om Prakash Shukla (supra) was followed by the Apex
Court in Madan Lal v. State of J & K, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486. The process
of selection of Munsifs in the State of Jammu and Kashmir undertaken by the
Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission, pursuant to an advertisement
notice, inviting applications in the months of July and August 1993, was
challenged. The Apex Court found on a mere look at the prayers that the attack
of the petitioners clearly was on the manner and method of conducting viva voce
test and result thereof. So far as the result of written test was concerned, not
only the petitioners had no grievance against the same but they relied thereon.
Ram Kumar Ram Chandra vs The Dominion Of India on 21 December, 1951
Dulichand Laxminarayan vs. Commr. of Income-Tax, Nagpur, (ii) AIR 1956 Nag
225 : Mt. Manbharibai vs. B.R. Mill, (iii) AIR 1954 Assam : Bhawarjit Chetri vs.
Kedarmal Banarasilal and (iv) AIR 1952 All 695 : M/s. Ram Kumar Ram Chandra
vs. The Dominion of India.
B.L. Sreedhar & Ors vs K.M. Munireddy (Dead) And Ors on 5 December, 2002
Secondly, an objection was raised by Mr. Mitra to the effect that the
petitioner having participated in the 3rd and 4th stages of the tender process
despite noticing alleged ineligibility of the private respondent to participate and
not having approached the Court at the appropriate stage to stall the
participation of the private respondent in the tender process, it must be treated
to have waived its objection and having taken a chance of being selected and
failed in its pursuit to be the successful bidder, it cannot now turn around and
contend that the private respondent was illegally allowed to participate. He relied
on the decisions in NICCO (supra), B.L. Sreedhar vs. K.M. Munireddy (dead) &
ors., reported in AIR 2003 SC 578 and Noble Resources Ltd. vs. State of Orissa,
reported in (2006) 10 SCC 236 in support of his contention that the conduct of
the petitioner is a relevant factor for deciding its claim.
Noble Resources Ltd vs State Of Orissa & Anr on 13 September, 2006
The Apex Court in Noble Resources (supra) ruled that the Courts can
scrutinize the award of contract by the Government or its agencies in exercise of
their power of judicial review to prevent arbitrariness and favouritism.
Andhra Industrial Works, A. P vs Chief Controller Of Imports And Ors on 26 April, 1974
No support can be derived by the petitioner from the decision in Andhra
Industrial Works (supra).
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
No discussion on the powers of judicial review of administrative action in
relation to award of contracts upon considering bids submitted by interested
parties pursuant to tender notices would be complete without reference to the
decision in Tata Cellular (supra), which is widely acclaimed as a locus classicus.
R & M Trust vs Koramangala Resi. Vigilance Group & Ors on 19 January, 2005
The decisions in B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. (supra), Master Marine Services
(P) Ltd., reported in (2005) 6 SCC 138 and R & M Trust vs. Koramangala
Residents Vigilance Group, reported in AIR 2005 SC 894, were relied on by him
to urge this Court not to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner for such
interference would work out immense prejudice to DPL.
Raj Kumar & Ors. Etc vs Shakti Raj & Ors. Etc on 11 February, 1997
Selection of NICCO was set aside on
the authority of the decision in Raj Kumar vs. Shakti Raj, reported in (1997) 9
SCC 527 wherein, upon considering the decision in Madan Lal (supra) and other
decisions referred therein, it was held that if a selection process is vitiated by
glaring illegality, principle of estoppel and acquiescence by conduct would not
apply. The Division Bench distinguished the said decision and ultimately the
appeal was allowed on setting aside of the order under appeal. It was held that
production of performance certificate was not an essential condition of the tender
terms and conditions and even Cable Corporation did not produce one. Yet, in
paragraph 21 of the report, the Court ruled as under:
Madan Lal vs State Of J&K on 6 August, 1997
The decision in Om Prakash Shukla (supra) was followed by the Apex
Court in Madan Lal v. State of J & K, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486. The process
of selection of Munsifs in the State of Jammu and Kashmir undertaken by the
Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission, pursuant to an advertisement
notice, inviting applications in the months of July and August 1993, was
challenged. The Apex Court found on a mere look at the prayers that the attack
of the petitioners clearly was on the manner and method of conducting viva voce
test and result thereof. So far as the result of written test was concerned, not
only the petitioners had no grievance against the same but they relied thereon.