Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.81 seconds)
M/S Jbm Ecolife Mobility Private ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 October, 2022 cites

M/S Patel Enginnering Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 11 May, 2012

56. The third case cited on behalf of UOI is the judgment of the Supreme Court in Patel Engineering Ltd. v Union of India and Anr. (2012) 11 SCC 257. 56.1. This was a case where the bidder i.e., the petitioner was blacklisted after it had refused to issue a confirmation letter although its bid had been accepted. This resulted in the respondent no.2/National Highways Authority of India [hereafter referred to as "authority"], having to award the contract to another entity at a much lower premium, causing substantial loss to it. Resultantly, the petitioner/bidder was debarred from participating or bidding for future projects for one year from the date of the said order being passed. 56.2. Given these facts, the Court refused to intervene with the blacklisting order. The Court ruled that, since respondent no.2/authority had the power to enter into a contract by necessary implication it also had the power not to enter into a contract.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 198 - Full Document

M/S Otik Hotels And Resorts Private ... vs Indian Railway Catering And Tourism ... on 5 October, 2016

56.3. One cannot quibble with the proposition that UOI has both the power to enter into a contract and for good reason, also the power not to enter into a contract. That said, in cases where the State [in this case UOI] so decides, it will have to conform to the rigour of Article 14 of the Constitution, as every person has a right to be treated equally when the State seeks to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA LPA 327/2022 & 500/2022 Pg. 42 of 46 Signing Date:11.10.2022 19:23:29 establish a contractual relationship. [See Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v State of WB; (1975) 1 SCC 70; this judgement has been cited with approval in Patel Engineering Ltd; see Paragraph 14 and 15 at pages 262-263] 57 The other judgement referred to by UOI is the judgement of a Single Judge of this Court in Otik Hotels and Resorts Pvt Ltd. v Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. ; (2010) 169 DLT 459. 57.1 This case is distinguishable on facts. This was a matter where the petitioner's licence issued by IRCTC was cancelled on account of IRCTC being furnished a balance sheet different from the one which was presented to the Income Tax Department and the Registrar of Companies. The audited balance sheet which was furnished to the Income Tax Department showed that the petitioner had a turnover of less than Rs 3 crores for 2003-2004; thus failing to meet the eligibility criteria. Because there was misrepresentation by the petitioner concerning sales figures, it was banned from engaging in future dealings with IRCTC for two years. 57.2. A perusal of the judgement shows that it was the second round of litigation for the parties. Since there was a failure on the part of IRCTC to accord time to the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice, the earlier writ petition was disposed of with directions, which effectively, called upon the IRCTC to deal with the petitioner's defence after it had submitted a reply to the show cause notice. This judgement, once again, on facts, has no applicability to the instant case.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 6 - Manmohan - Full Document

Techno Precision Engineers Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Western Coalfields Limited on 6 February, 2014

59. Similarly, the judgement in Techno Precision Engineers Ltd. v Western Coalfields Ltd.; (2014) 2 AIR Bom R 511, is distinguishable on facts. This was a case where the petitioner company and its director was banned for three years on the ground of cartelisation. The same family had filed three different tenders via three different concerns, raising a spectre of underhand/undisclosed understanding,
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Amit Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 September, 2020

54. The first in line is the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Amit Kumar v State of U.P. and Another ;(2020) ALR 290. This was a case where the petitioner had approached the Court for relief inter alia, on the ground that he had been permanently blacklisted from applying for tenders issued by the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Uttar Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA LPA 327/2022 & 500/2022 Pg. 35 of 46 Signing Date:11.10.2022 19:23:29 Pradesh. It was contended that the impugned action was violative of principles of natural justice and more particularly because the impugned action had been taken recourse to without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
Allahabad High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

M/S Kulja Industries Ltd vs Chief Gen.Manager W.T.Proj.Bsnl & Ors on 4 October, 2013

54.2. It is in this context that the Court, after noticing the judgement of the Supreme Court in Kulja Industries Ltd v Chief General Manager, W.T. Project, BSNL; (2014) 14 SCC 731, in which the Supreme Court inter alia, has held that blacklisting cannot run for an indefinite period, refused to issue a writ on the ground that as long as the petitioner's mother continued to remain the owner of the mill, the eligibility criteria would come in his way in bidding for future contracts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 199 - T S Thakur - Full Document

S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors on 18 September, 1980

54.4. This judgement, in our view, would have no applicability, as the concerned authority is required not only to decide whether or not intra-group sales could have been included in calculating the GGR, but also as to the punishment that is to be accorded in the instant case; both aspects need adjudication once a proper show cause notice is framed in that behalf and served on JBM Electric. This is not a case of a futile writ being issued as is Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA LPA 327/2022 & 500/2022 Pg. 36 of 46 Signing Date:11.10.2022 19:23:29 contended on behalf of UOI. The following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of SL Kapoor v Jagmohan; (1980) 4 SCC 379 will make this abundantly clear:
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 1083 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 11 November, 1974

56.3. One cannot quibble with the proposition that UOI has both the power to enter into a contract and for good reason, also the power not to enter into a contract. That said, in cases where the State [in this case UOI] so decides, it will have to conform to the rigour of Article 14 of the Constitution, as every person has a right to be treated equally when the State seeks to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA LPA 327/2022 & 500/2022 Pg. 42 of 46 Signing Date:11.10.2022 19:23:29 establish a contractual relationship. [See Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v State of WB; (1975) 1 SCC 70; this judgement has been cited with approval in Patel Engineering Ltd; see Paragraph 14 and 15 at pages 262-263] 57 The other judgement referred to by UOI is the judgement of a Single Judge of this Court in Otik Hotels and Resorts Pvt Ltd. v Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. ; (2010) 169 DLT 459. 57.1 This case is distinguishable on facts. This was a matter where the petitioner's licence issued by IRCTC was cancelled on account of IRCTC being furnished a balance sheet different from the one which was presented to the Income Tax Department and the Registrar of Companies. The audited balance sheet which was furnished to the Income Tax Department showed that the petitioner had a turnover of less than Rs 3 crores for 2003-2004; thus failing to meet the eligibility criteria. Because there was misrepresentation by the petitioner concerning sales figures, it was banned from engaging in future dealings with IRCTC for two years. 57.2. A perusal of the judgement shows that it was the second round of litigation for the parties. Since there was a failure on the part of IRCTC to accord time to the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice, the earlier writ petition was disposed of with directions, which effectively, called upon the IRCTC to deal with the petitioner's defence after it had submitted a reply to the show cause notice. This judgement, once again, on facts, has no applicability to the instant case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 774 - A N Ray - Full Document
1