Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (1.15 seconds)M/S N.G. Projects Limited vs M/S Vinod Kumar Jain on 21 March, 2022
41. It was submitted that the scope of interference in award of contracts
as well as the deleterious effect that interference by Courts in the
implementation of large public projects were issues which had been
recently considered and decided by the Supreme Court in N.G. Projects
Ltd. vs. Vinod Kumar Jain17. Dr. Singhvi drew the attention of the Court
to the following observations as made by the Supreme Court in that
decision:-
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 13 December, 2019
17. Normally, this Court would have quashed the Government of U.P.'s
decision, and left it to grant a hearing to Daffodills, before taking any
action. However, given that the impugned order of debarring (i.e.
directive not to procure locally from Daffodills) was made over 4 years
and 3 months ago, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the
overall interest of justice that appropriate relief is granted. Accordingly,
the said order of the Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. directing all
departments concerned to desist from resorting to local purchase from the
appellant is, hereby quashed. The impugned judgment [Daffodills
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of U.P. 2017 SCC OnLine All 2914] of the
High Court is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
No costs.‖
Nasir Ahemed vs Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee ... on 28 March, 1980
An order travelling beyond the bounds
of notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent This
Court in Nasir Ahmad v. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property.
Lucknow and Anr,1 has held that it is essential for the notice to specify
the particular grounds on the basis of which an action is proposed to be
taken so as to enable the noticee to answer the case against him. If these
conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been
granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Unitech Limied vs Telangana State Industrial ... on 17 February, 2021
29. Mr. Sharma, in support of this submissions, has also placed reliance
upon 15 to 19 of the Guidelines which have been extracted hereinabove.
S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors on 18 September, 1980
31. On the issue of the asserted violation of the principles of natural
justice, the learned ASG submitted that the principles of an opportunity of
hearing as enunciated by courts are not liable to be viewed as encompassed
in a straight jacket. It was submitted that those fundamental rules of fair
play have always been recognised to be flexible and the extent of their
application dependent upon the facts of a particular case. It was submitted
that right from the celebrated decision of the Supreme Court in S.L.
Kapoor vs. Jagmohan14, it has been consistently held that where on a
given set of admitted facts only one conclusion is possible, the Court would
not issue a futile writ. It was pointed out that in the facts of the present case,
it is evident that the sister concern of the petitioner has been debarred.
Learned ASG submits that as long as the aforesaid order stands, the
petitioner would clearly stand disqualified. In that view of the matter, it was
submitted that providing of an opportunity of hearing would have been a
useless formality.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
"47. The result of this discussion is that the issue of the acceptance or
rejection of a bid or a bidder should be looked at not only from the point
of view of the unsuccessful party but also from the point of view of the
employer. As held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana Dayaram
Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] the
terms of NIT cannot be ignored as being redundant or superfluous. They
18 [(2016) 8 SCC 622]
W.P. (C) 6708/2022 Page 32 of 55
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEHA
Signing Date:10.05.2022
16:10:03
must be given a meaning and the necessary significance.
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
As pointed out
in Tata Cellular [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651]
there must be judicial restraint in interfering with administrative action.
Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the employer ought
not to be questioned but the decision-making process can certainly be
subject to judicial review.
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].