Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)
B K Construction vs Managing Director on 6 June, 2022 cites

Mr. B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd vs Nair Coal Services Ltd. & Ors on 31 October, 2006

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in BSN Joshi and Sons Limited vs. Nair Coal Services Limited reported in (2006) 11 SCC 548 while laying down certain cheques and balances relating to the public tender opined that the public authorities have the autonomy to fix their term and condition and even they are entitled to enter into negotiation before finally deciding to accept one of the offers amongst many offers made to it. They are having lee way to grant relaxation, of course, for a bonafide reason, if the tender condition permits the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 458 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994

10. In view of different pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court, this court can take judicial notice that there has been a rise in scrutiny of tender in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and almost all tenders are sought to be challenged by way of the writ petition in a matter of routine. In the aforesaid backdrop, Hon'ble Apex court has repeatedly held that in certain aspects relating to tender judicial review is equivalent to judicial restraint. The Hon'ble Apex court has viewed that such review should relate not to the decision itself but to the decision making process. It is well settled that the writ court does not have the expertise to correct such a decision by substituting its own decision for the decision of the authority. This court can gainfully rely on the decision of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651, which is quoted as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3275 - S Mohan - Full Document

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr on 15 September, 2016

11. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818 that it was held that a mere disagreement with the decision Page No.# 11/16 making process or with the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for the Constitutional court to interfere. The threshold of malafide, intention to favour someone, arbitrariness, irrationality, and perversity must be satisfied before the Constitutional Court to interfere with the decision-making process or the decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 560 - M B Lokur - Full Document

The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019

In Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows "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 as a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of 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."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 312 - D Gupta - Full Document
1