Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)National High Speed Rail Corporation ... vs Montecarlo Limited on 31 January, 2022
"34. Even otherwise it is required to be noted
that once a conscious decision was taken by the
JICC and JICA, who can be said to be the author
of the terms and conditions of the tender
Page 17 of 27
document, taking a view and stand that the Bid
submitted by the original writ petitioner suffers
from material deviation and the said decision
was taken after considering the relevant clauses
of the ITB, thereafter it was not open for the High
Court to interfere with such a conscious decision
in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and take a view that the
Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner was
in substantial compliance.
M/S Galaxy Transport ... vs M/S New J.K. Roadways,Fleet Owners And ... on 18 December, 2020
In Galaxy Transport Agency v. New J.K.
Roadways, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1035, a three Judge
Bench of the apex Court reiterated that the authority
that authors the tender document is the best person to
Page 19 of 27
understand and appreciate its requirements, and thus,
its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a
Court in judicial review proceedings.
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr on 15 September, 2016
In Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur
Metro Rail Corporation Limited and another, (2016)
16 SCC 818, the apex Court at paragraph-15 of the
judgment observed as follows:-
Central Coalfieds Limited vs Sll-Sml (Joint Venture Consortium) . on 17 August, 2016
In Central Coalfield Limited and another
v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and others,
(2016) 8 SCC 622, the apex Court at paragraphs-47 of
the judgment ruled as follows:-
M/S Michigan Rubber(I) Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 August, 2012
"47. The result of this discussion is that the
issue of the acceptance or rejection of a bid or a
Page 20 of 27
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 the terms of the NIT
cannot be ignored as being redundant or
superfluous. They must be given a meaning and
the necessary significance. As pointed out in
Tata Cellular 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. The 2016 (7) SCALE 425
(2012) 8 SCC 216 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 Odisha, (2007) 14 SCC 517]
followed in Michigan Rubber [Michigan Rubber
(India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC
216]."
The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019
"20. The essence of the law laid down in the
judgments referred to above is the exercise of
restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming
public interest to justify judicial intervention in
matters of contract involving the state
instrumentalities; the courts should give way to
the opinion of the experts unless the decision is
totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does
not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate
authority; the court must realise that the
authority floating the tender is the best judge of
Page 21 of 27
its requirements and, therefore, the court's
interference should be minimal. The authority
which floats the contract or tender, and has
authored the tender documents is the best judge
as to how the documents have to be interpreted.
If two interpretations are possible then the
interpretation of the author must be accepted.
The courts will only interfere to prevent
arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or
perversity. With this approach in mind we shall
deal with the present case."
Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs M/S Anoj Kumar Agarwala on 23 January, 2019
In Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation and others v. Anoj Kumar Agarwala
and others, (2020) 17 SCC 577, the apex Court held
that the tender documents cannot be ignored or treated
as redundant or superfluous and they must be given
meaning and their necessary significance. Given the fact
that in the present case, an essential tender condition,
which had to be strictly complied with, was not so
complied with, the appellant would have no power to
condone lack of such strict compliance. Any such
condonation, as has been done in the present case,
would amount to perversity in the understanding or
appreciation of the terms of the tender conditions, which
must be interfered with by a constitutional court.
Bakshi Security And Personnel Services ... vs Devkishan Computed Pvt Ltd And Ors on 26 July, 2016
In Bakshi Security and Personnel Services
Private Limited v. Devkishan Computed Private
Limited and Others, (2016) 8 SC C 446, the apex
Court in paragraphs-14 & 15 of the judgment held as
follow:-
Poddar Steel Corporation vs Ganesh Engineering Works And Others on 6 May, 1991
In Poddar Steel Corpn, v.
Ganesh Engg. Works,(1991) 3 SCC 273,
this Court held as under: (SCC p. 276, para