Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary
concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative
sphere or quasi-administrative sphere [Tata Cellular vs. UOI reported in
(1994) 6 SCC 651].
Air India Ltd. vs Cochin International Airport Ltd. on 31 January, 2000
(c) In (2000) 2 SCC 617 (Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport
Ltd.) the Supreme Court held that the award of contract is essential in
commercial transaction, which involves commercial consideration and results
in commercial decision. In para 7 it is further held, "7. ...........
The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its
own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny.
.........."
Shimnit Utsch India Pvt.Ltd. & Anr vs W.B. Tpt.Infrastructure ... on 12 May, 2010
In support of his contentions, he relied on the decision of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Shimnit Utsch India (P) Ltd., v. W.B. Transport
Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., reported in (2010) 6 Supreme
Court Cases 303 and the decision of this Court in Misha Power Pvt. Ltd., v.
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., reported in (2013) 2
MLJ 129.
Meerut Devt.Authority vs Association Of Management Studies & Anr on 17 April, 2009
(e) In AIR 2009 SC 2894 (Meerut Development Authority v. Association of
Management Studies) it was held that the tender is an offer. It is something
which invites and communicated to the intending tenderers to notify their
acceptance. The terms of invitation of tender cannot be open to judicial
scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract.
Tejas Construction & Infras.Pvt.Ltd vs Municipal Council Sendhwa & Anr on 4 May, 2012
(f) The decisions cited in (a) to (d) above were followed in the recent
decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2012) 6 SCC 464 (Tejas
Constructions & Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. Municipal Council, Sendhwa) and
dismissed similar challenge by holding that in the absence of any mala fide
or arbitrariness in the process of evaluation of bids and determination of
the eligibility of the bidders, the Court shall not interfere.
Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
(d) In (2007) 14 SCC 517 (Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa) in
paragraph 22 it is held thus, "22. ................... a court before
interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial
review, should pose to itself the following questions:
Misha Power Pvt. Ltd vs Tamil Nadu Generation on 8 January, 2013
In support of his contentions, he relied on the decision of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Shimnit Utsch India (P) Ltd., v. W.B. Transport
Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., reported in (2010) 6 Supreme
Court Cases 303 and the decision of this Court in Misha Power Pvt. Ltd., v.
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., reported in (2013) 2
MLJ 129.
Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998
(b) In (1999) 1 SCC 492 (Raunaq International Ltd. v.
I.V.R.Construction Ltd) the Supreme Court reiterated the said principle and
held that the writ Court would not be justified in interfering with the
commercial transaction in which the State is one of the parties to the same
except where there is substantial public interest involved and in cases where
the transaction is mala fide.
1