Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
Elite Computers And Communications ... vs The State Of Assam & 11 Ors on 11 July, 2017 cites

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

35. It was further held that if others (such as the appellant in Ramana Dayaram Shetty case) were aware that non-fulfilment of the eligibility condition of being a registered IInd class hotelier would not be a bar for consideration, they too would have submitted a tender, but were prevented from doing so due to the eligibility condition, which was relaxed in the case of Respondent 4. This resulted in unequal treatment in favour of Respondent 4 - treatment that was constitutionally impermissible. Expounding on this, it was held:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 2519 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994

43. Continuing in the vein of accepting the inherent authority of an employer to deviate from the terms and conditions of an NIT, and reintroducing the privilege-of-participation principle and the level playing field concept, this Court laid emphasis on the decision-making process, particularly in respect of a commercial contract. One of the more significant cases on the subject is the three-Judge decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India which gave importance to the lawfulness of a decision and not its soundness. If an administrative decision, such as a deviation in the terms of NIT is not arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, mala fide or biased, the courts will not judicially review the decision taken. Similarly, the courts will not countenance interference with the decision at the behest of an unsuccessful bidder in respect of a technical or procedural violation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3275 - S Mohan - Full Document

Plr - Rpl -Smasl(Jv) vs Sll-Sml (Joint Venture Consortium ) . on 11 April, 2016

In order to support his submissions, Mr. Saikia relies on the case of Central Coalfields Lim ited and another v. SLL-SM L (Joint Venture Consortium ) and others along with the case of PLR-R PL-SM ASL (JV) v. SLL-SM L (Joint Venture Consortium ) and others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622 paragraphs 33, 34, 35 and 43 of which are quoted below for ready reference:-
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1