Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
M/S Sharma Transport Agency vs Coal India Limited And Others on 14 December, 2018 cites

Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994

21. In support of ECL's argument that a writ court ought not to sit an appeal over an executive decision, several judgments have been cited. The decision reported at (1994) 6 SCC 651 (Tata Cellular v. Union of India) has been brought to bear on the limited scope of judicial review that would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by government bodies. ECL exhorts that the object of the exercise is only to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism and even administrative discretion must be respected unless found to be perverse or patently unreasonable. A judgment reported at (1993) 1 SCC 445 (Sterling Computers Limited v. M/s M & N Publications Limited) has next been brought for the proposition that just as executive action must always be guided by public interest, once the court finds that the objective standards have been adhered to, the court would scarcely interfere with the decision-making process.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3275 - S Mohan - Full Document

Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006

Another judgment reported at (2007) 14 SCC 517 (Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa) has been placed by ECL. The judgment warns against judicial intervention in tender or in contractual matters in exercise of the power of judicial review unless the process adopted or decision made is found to be mala fide or intended to favour some one; or the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have acted in such manner; or where public interest is affected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 887 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Nicco Corporation Ltd. vs Cable Corporation Of India Limited And ... on 15 October, 2007

27. The private respondent has referred to a judgment reported at (2008) 1 CHN (Cal) 567 (NICCO Corporation Limited v. Cable Corporation of India Limited) for its recognition as a settled legal principle that "when two interpretations of a clause of a notice of tender are possible and the tendering authority has adopted one of those, which is not an absurd view, a Writ Court should not interfere with the decision of the authority." The private respondent has also relied on the Afcons Infrastructure Limited judgment earlier placed on behalf of ECL.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 11 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

West Bengal State Electricity Board vs Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. & Ors on 15 January, 2001

A judgment reported at (2001) 2 SCC 451 (West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. Limited) is next relied upon by the private respondent. In that case a computer error disqualified the lowest bidder and the Supreme Court found that it was an avoidable mistake which may not have crept in if the bidder had been diligent and it was not open to the court to ask the employer to overlook the mistake and act in derogation of the terms of the NIT even though the disqualified bid may have been the lowest.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 342 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Ratnagiri Gas & Power Pvt.Ltd vs Rds Projects Ltd.& Ors on 18 October, 2012

28. A judgment reported at (2013) 1 SCC 524 (Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited v. RDS Projects Limited) has been brought by the private respondent for the enunciation therein as to what amounts to malice in law. The substance of the discussion, as will be evident from paragraphs 31 and 32 of the report, is that malice in law or legal malice means something done without lawful exercise and not necessarily an act done from ill-feeling or spite.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 79 - T S Thakur - Full Document
1