Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.27 seconds)
Sanjay Kr Singh vs Purbanchal Buildtech Pvt Ltd And 6 Ors on 2 August, 2024 cites

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

Etc., reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking note of the earlier decisions rendered in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651; Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492; Air India Limited Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617; Karnataka SIIDC Ltd. Vs. Cavalet India Ltd., (2005) 4 SCC 456; Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 138; B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. Vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 548; Jagdish Mondal Vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517; Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216; Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818; Montecarlo Vs. NTPC Ltd, AIR 2016 SC 4946; Municipal Corporation, Ujjain Vs. BVG India Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 462; and Caretel Infotech Limited Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 2019 (6) SCALE 70, has held in paragraphs 19 and 20 as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 560 - M B Lokur - Full Document

M/S Galaxy Transport ... vs M/S New J.K. Roadways,Fleet Owners And ... on 18 December, 2020

25. This Court referred to various decisions on the subject and stated the legal principles as follows : (Galaxy Transport Agencies case [Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners & Transport Contractors, (2021) 16 SCC 808 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1035], SCC paras 14-20) "14. In a series of judgments, this Court has held that the authority that authors the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and thus, its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 73 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Montecarlo Ltd vs Ntpc Ltd on 18 October, 2016

Etc., reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking note of the earlier decisions rendered in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651; Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492; Air India Limited Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617; Karnataka SIIDC Ltd. Vs. Cavalet India Ltd., (2005) 4 SCC 456; Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 138; B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. Vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 548; Jagdish Mondal Vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517; Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216; Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818; Montecarlo Vs. NTPC Ltd, AIR 2016 SC 4946; Municipal Corporation, Ujjain Vs. BVG India Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 462; and Caretel Infotech Limited Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 2019 (6) SCALE 70, has held in paragraphs 19 and 20 as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 201 - D Misra - Full Document

Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994

48. So far as the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular (supra) is concerned, there is no quarrel that the decision of a decision making authority in contractual matters is always subject to judicial review, but such judicial review is limited and open only in those cases where arbitrariness, mala fide or bias in the action of the decision making authority is apparent, and the same is the law at present.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3275 - S Mohan - Full Document

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

46. So far as the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gordhandas Bhanji, (supra) and Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), on which the learned counsel for the company has placed reliance, are concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgments has laid down that an authority cannot justify its action by furnishing supplementary reasons. However, since we have already clarified that we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that for justifying their decision the appellants cannot rely on a fact which had not been considered by the action taking authority while taking such decision, no further deliberation is required on this aspect.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006

Etc., reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking note of the earlier decisions rendered in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651; Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492; Air India Limited Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617; Karnataka SIIDC Ltd. Vs. Cavalet India Ltd., (2005) 4 SCC 456; Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 138; B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. Vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 548; Jagdish Mondal Vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517; Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216; Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818; Montecarlo Vs. NTPC Ltd, AIR 2016 SC 4946; Municipal Corporation, Ujjain Vs. BVG India Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 462; and Caretel Infotech Limited Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 2019 (6) SCALE 70, has held in paragraphs 19 and 20 as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 887 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs Amr Dev Prabha on 18 March, 2020

In the judgment in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev Prabha [Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev Prabha, (2020) 16 SCC 759], under the heading "Deference to authority's interpretation", this Court stated Page No.# 20/26 : (SCC p. 776, paras 50-52) '50. Lastly, we deem it necessary to deal with another fundamental problem. It is obvious that Respondent 1 seeks to only enforce terms of NIT. Inherent in such exercise is interpretation of contractual terms.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 113 - S A Bobde - Full Document

M/S N.G. Projects Limited vs M/S Vinod Kumar Jain on 21 March, 2022

In the case of N.G. Projects Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors., reported in (2002) 6 SCC 127, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has even held to the extent that even if a case of arbitrariness or mala fide is made out, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the matters of grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 183 - H Gupta - Full Document

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

In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Page No.# 25/26 Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the aspect of the price quoted in the bid in the matter of awarding contract, has held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 782 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next