Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.23 seconds)Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Central Coalfieds Limited vs Sll-Sml (Joint Venture Consortium) . on 17 August, 2016
In this aspect observation of the Supreme
Court in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. SLL-
SML(Joint Venture Consortium) and Ors. , reported in
(2016) 8 SCC 622 can be taken note of where it has been
observed that the court must as far as possible avoid an
interpretation which would render the words used by the
author of the document meaningless and futile and reduce to
silence any part of the document or making it altogether
inapplicable.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
In the case of Jagdish Mandal vs. State of
Orissa;(2007) 14 SCC 517, the established principle has
been reiterated that the scope of judicial review of
administrative action is only to the extent to prevent
arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias, malafide
and to check whether choice of decision is made arbitrarily
and not to check whether the choice of decision is sound. It
has also been held that when the decision to awarding of
contract is bonafide and is in public interest, the court should
not interfere in exercise of power of judicial review even if a
procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to
a tenderer is made out.
Estate Officer Ut Chandigarh And Ors vs M/S. Esys Information Technologies ... on 11 May, 2016
21. Learned counsel has also relied on the
decision of the Apex court in the case of Estate Officer, UT,
Chandigarh & Ors. vs. Esys Information Technologies
(P) Ltd., ( (2016) 12 SCC 582 ) and in the case of
Chkandrakant Hargovindas Shah vs. Deputy
Commissioner of Police and Anr., ( (2009) 7 SCC 186 )
and argued that respondent no.5, had suppressed material
facts regarding the cases instituted by him and this amounted
to false representation and he is guilty of 'suppressio veri'
and 'suggestio falsi'. That the Tender Committee has
conveniently over-looked this aspect that respondent no.5 has
"litigation history" which is indicative of the malafide and
bias attitude of the Committee.
Chandrakant Hargovindas Shah vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Police & Anr on 5 May, 2009
21. Learned counsel has also relied on the
decision of the Apex court in the case of Estate Officer, UT,
Chandigarh & Ors. vs. Esys Information Technologies
(P) Ltd., ( (2016) 12 SCC 582 ) and in the case of
Chkandrakant Hargovindas Shah vs. Deputy
Commissioner of Police and Anr., ( (2009) 7 SCC 186 )
and argued that respondent no.5, had suppressed material
facts regarding the cases instituted by him and this amounted
to false representation and he is guilty of 'suppressio veri'
and 'suggestio falsi'. That the Tender Committee has
conveniently over-looked this aspect that respondent no.5 has
"litigation history" which is indicative of the malafide and
bias attitude of the Committee.
Union Of India & Ors vs Vasavi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors on 7 January, 2014
Learned counsel cited the
decision in the case of Union of India vs. Vasavi
Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., ( (2014) 2 SCC 269)
and submitted that respondent no.5 failed to discharge the
burden by producing the relevant documents.