Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 July, 2002
11. Nextly, the learned counsel sought to draw support
from the Apex Court's judgment in the case of KANHAIYA LAL
AGRAWAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in
(2002) 6 SCC 315. Paragraph Nos.5, 6 and 7 of the said
decision are extracted hereinbelow:
G.J. Fernandez vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 1 February, 1990
6. It is settled law that when an essential condition of
tender is not complied with, it is open to the person
inviting tender to reject the same. Whether a condition is
essential or collateral could be ascertained by reference to
consequence of non-compliance thereto. If non-fulfilment
of the requirement results in rejection of the tender, then
it would be an essential part of the tender otherwise it is
9
only a collateral term. This legal position has been well
explained in G.J.Fernandez v. State of Karnataka.
Air India Ltd. vs Cochin International Airport Ltd. on 31 January, 2000
As held by the
Apex Court in the case of AIR India (supra), the State and its
instrumentalities can fix their own terms of invitation to the
tenderer. As held by this Court in W.P.No.6996/2014, the
principle of strict compliance has to be applied, where it is
possible for all the parties to comply with all the conditions fully.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
7. The law relating to award of a contract by the
State, its corporations and bodies acting as
instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has
been settled by the decision of this Court in Ramana
Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of
India, Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of
India, CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd,, Tata Cellular v. Union of
India.
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union ... vs Union Of India And Others on 13 November, 1980
In the case of M/s. Poddar Steel Corporation
(supra) what was waived was depositing by cash or by demand
draft. The point that fell for consideration in the said case was
whether the earnest money by certified cheque of the Union
Bank of India could be treated as sufficient compliance of tender
terms. In the case of Kanhaiya lal (supra) what fell for
consideration was the concession or rebate given is an additional
inducement to accept the tender. In the instant case, the
insistence, as per clause 3.3 of the tender notification, for the
tenderer owning 50% of the equipment with the remaining 50%
on lease or hiring basis cannot be wished away as a requirement
of little or of no significance. It cannot be said that such a
requirement is merely ancillary or subsidiary.
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Dunlop India Limited on 12 September, 2001
7. The law relating to award of a contract by the
State, its corporations and bodies acting as
instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has
been settled by the decision of this Court in Ramana
Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of
India, Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of
India, CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd,, Tata Cellular v. Union of
India.
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
7. The law relating to award of a contract by the
State, its corporations and bodies acting as
instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has
been settled by the decision of this Court in Ramana
Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of
India, Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of
India, CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd,, Tata Cellular v. Union of
India.
Ramniklal N. Bhutta & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 1996
Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra and
Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. The
award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by
a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial
transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision
considerations which are paramount are commercial
considerations. 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. It can
enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept
one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the
12
sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant
any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender
conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the
offer even though it happens to be the highest or the
lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities
and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms,
standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot
depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not
amenable to judicial review, the Court can examine the
decision making process and interfere if it is found
vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and
arbitrariness. The State, its corporations,
instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be
fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in
the decision-making process the Court must exercise its
discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution
and should exercise it only in furtherance of public
interest and not merely on the making out of a legal
point. The Court should always keep the larger public
interest in mind in order to decide whether its
intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a
conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires
interference, the Court should intervene.
Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998
Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra and
Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. The
award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by
a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial
transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision
considerations which are paramount are commercial
considerations. 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. It can
enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept
one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the
12
sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant
any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender
conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the
offer even though it happens to be the highest or the
lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities
and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms,
standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot
depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not
amenable to judicial review, the Court can examine the
decision making process and interfere if it is found
vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and
arbitrariness. The State, its corporations,
instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be
fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in
the decision-making process the Court must exercise its
discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution
and should exercise it only in furtherance of public
interest and not merely on the making out of a legal
point. The Court should always keep the larger public
interest in mind in order to decide whether its
intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a
conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires
interference, the Court should intervene.