Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.40 seconds)
The Tata Power Company Limited And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 13 April, 2009 cites

Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979

27. Learned counsel for Tata Power relied upon Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India & Others, (1979) 3 SCC 489 to contend that a person who is not a bidder can nevertheless challenge the award of a contract in favour of another party. A reading of paragraph 34 of the Report, which is relied upon by learned counsel, shows that both the appellant in that case as well as respondent No.4 did not meet the eligibility criterion. However, respondent No.1 therein accepted the tender of respondent No.4. It was in that context that the Supreme Court held that the appellant could challenge the acceptance of the tender submitted by respondent No.4 since the action of respondent No.1 therein was clearly discriminatory and arbitrary because it excluded other persons similarly situate from WP (C) No.62/2009 Page 20 of 28 tendering for the contract.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 2519 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998

29. In our opinion, none of these decisions are apposite. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty, the bid of one ineligible person was entertained while that of another ineligible person was not entertained. The Supreme Court held this to be discriminatory and arbitrary. In Raunaq International, the bid of both ineligible persons was entertained. In the writ petition that we are concerned with, there is no question about either Tata Power being ineligible or Reliance Power being ineligible. Admittedly, both are eligible and their bids were WP (C) No.62/2009 Page 21 of 28 entertained and neither one of them has made a grievance in this regard. That apart, the two decisions referred to above show that as long as the playing field remains level for all the bidders or putative bidders, no one can make an allegation of discrimination or arbitrariness.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 782 - S V Manohar - Full Document

The Management Of M/S. Indian Iron & ... vs Prahlad Singh on 3 November, 2000

32. The final submission relating to delay and laches was made WP (C) No.62/2009 Page 23 of 28 before us by learned counsel for Reliance Power. The submission was that the writ petition should not be entertained because the Empowered Group of Ministers took a decision on 14 th August, 2008 while the writ petition was filed in early January, 2009 after an unexplained delay of about five months. By and large, it is not as if delay in every case can be described as unreasonable or fatal to the interests of a petitioner. The facts of each case have to be taken into consideration. [See for example Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Prahlad Singh, (2001) 1 SCC 424]. Therefore, we need to ascertain the events that transpired after 14 th August, 2008 and whether they are sufficient to non-suit Tata Power on the grounds of delay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 39 - S V Patil - Full Document

State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors on 24 October, 1986

In fact, altering one‟s position by incurring substantial expenditure was one of the factors (coupled with delay) that prompted the Supreme Court to hold against the writ petitioner in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandlal WP (C) No.62/2009 Page 25 of 28 Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 and in Ramana Dayaram Shetty. In our opinion, the law laid down by these two decisions is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Even if the decision of the Empowered Group of Ministers is unconstitutional, the decisions of the Supreme Court prohibit us from interfering, particularly since we are of the opinion that the demand of justice is not so compelling as to necessitate our interdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 869 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Poorvanchal Caterers And Anr. vs Indian Railway Catering And Tourism ... on 22 December, 2005

21. Similarly, in Poorvanchal Caterers & Anr. v. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., 127 (2006) DLT 41 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court observed in paragraph 23 of the Report that it is well settled that since the writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction, a writ petition is liable to be dismissed if the petitioner does not come to the Court with clean hands.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - M Katju - Full Document
1