Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.66 seconds)
Shreejikrupa Project Limited vs Telecommunication Consultants India ... on 26 July, 2023 cites

Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979

48. Therefore, whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. Even if the term is essential, the employer has the inherent authority to deviate from it provided the deviation is made applicable to all bidders and potential bidders as held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] . However, if the term is held by the employer to be ancillary or subsidiary, even that decision should be respected. The lawfulness of that decision can be questioned on very limited grounds, as mentioned in the various decisions discussed above, but the soundness of the decision cannot be questioned, otherwise this Court would be taking over the function of the tender issuing authority, which it cannot.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 2519 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

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

The soundness of the decision may be questioned if it is irrational or mala fide or intended to favour someone or a decision „that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached‟ as held in Jagdish Mandal [Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517] followed in Michigan Rubber [Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 887 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Central Coalfieds Limited vs Sll-Sml (Joint Venture Consortium) . on 17 August, 2016

28.5. Rejecting the claim of the bidder and upholding the decision of the employer of rejection of bid for non-compliance of submitting the bank guarantee in prescribed format, this Court in paras 31 to 38, 42 to 44, 47 to 49, 52, 55 and 56 has observed and held as under : (Central Coalfields case [Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622 : (2016) 4 SCC (Civ) 106] , SCC pp. 632-36 & 638-
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 9 - Cited by 360 - M B Lokur - Full Document

M/S Galaxy Transport ... vs M/S New J.K. Roadways,Fleet Owners And ... on 18 December, 2020

25. This Court referred to various decisions on the subject and stated the legal principles as follows : (Galaxy Transport Agencies case [Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners & Transport Contractors, (2021) 16 SCC 808 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1035] , SCC paras 14-20) "14. In a series of judgments, this Court has held that the authority that authors the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and thus, its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 73 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998

10. The scope of judicial review in contractual matters was further examined by this Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651] , Raunaq International Ltd. case [Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492] and in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa [Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517] besides several other decisions to which we need not refer."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 782 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Reliance Energy Limited & Another vs Maharashtra State Road Development ... on 11 September, 2007

29. The said decision in Reliance Energy [Reliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 1] has no direct application to the facts of the present case and even otherwise, it has not been the finding of the High Court that the term stated by the tender inviting authority--NVS was lacking in certainty. However, beyond this, as to which particular product was to be treated as similar category product, could not have been a matter of interpretative exercise by the Court, particularly when the view taken by the tender inviting authority and its Evaluation Committee has not been shown to be absurd or irrational or suffering from mala fides.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 249 - Full Document

Tejas Construction & Infras.Pvt.Ltd vs Municipal Council Sendhwa & Anr on 4 May, 2012

In Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216] , after considering various other decisions of this Court on the point, more particularly, after considering the decisions in Jagdish Mandal [Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517] and Tejas Constructions & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Council, Sendhwa [Tejas Constructions & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Council, Sendhwa, (2012) 6 SCC 464] , in paras 23 and 24, this Court has observed and held as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 110 - T S Thakur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next