Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.33 seconds)
Gmr Airports Ltd. Through Aurthorised ... vs Mihan India Ltd. Thr. Chairman And ... on 18 August, 2021 cites

Rishi Kiran Logistics P.Ltd vs Board Of Trus. Of Kandla Port Trust&Ors; on 21 April, 2014

28. Learned Senior Advocate for respondent no.1 would submit that not only the conditions stated in the said letter but also various clauses of the RFP would certainly show that by the said letter, respondent no.1 has only communicated to the petitioner no.1 ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2021 15:11:47 ::: 36 wp1723.20.odt it's acceptance of bid subject to fulfillment of the conditions stated therein and as those conditions were not fulfilled and even the part that was required to be completed by the petitioner no.1 remained to be fulfilled, the said letter could not be termed as the LoA. Learned Senior Advocate for respondent no.1 further submits that this LoA does not create any binding obligations so as to result into a concluded contract between the parties, as the acceptance is not conditional. He seeks support from Section 7 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. He points out that, in the said letter of acceptance, the words "tendered work is awarded to you " are not mentioned and therefore, it could not be regarded as LoA. He also submits that having accepted the conditions of the said letter of acceptance, it was necessary for the petitioner no.1 to have executed Concession Agreement and furnished a performance security and same having not done, no vested rights are created in petitioner no.1 and that it cannot say that it would accept only some of the conditions of the said letter and would reject the others. He places reliance upon the cases of Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Limited vs. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust and Others reported in (2015) 13 SCC 233, Padia Timber Company Private Limited .vs. Board of Trustees of Visakhapatnam Port Trust, through its Secretary reported in (2021) 3 ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2021 15:11:47 ::: 37 wp1723.20.odt SCC 24 and PSA Mumbai Investments PTE.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 179 - A K Sikri - Full Document

M/S. Padia Timber Co. P. Ltd. vs The Board Of Trustees Of Visakhapatnam ... on 5 January, 2021

28. Learned Senior Advocate for respondent no.1 would submit that not only the conditions stated in the said letter but also various clauses of the RFP would certainly show that by the said letter, respondent no.1 has only communicated to the petitioner no.1 ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2021 15:11:47 ::: 36 wp1723.20.odt it's acceptance of bid subject to fulfillment of the conditions stated therein and as those conditions were not fulfilled and even the part that was required to be completed by the petitioner no.1 remained to be fulfilled, the said letter could not be termed as the LoA. Learned Senior Advocate for respondent no.1 further submits that this LoA does not create any binding obligations so as to result into a concluded contract between the parties, as the acceptance is not conditional. He seeks support from Section 7 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. He points out that, in the said letter of acceptance, the words "tendered work is awarded to you " are not mentioned and therefore, it could not be regarded as LoA. He also submits that having accepted the conditions of the said letter of acceptance, it was necessary for the petitioner no.1 to have executed Concession Agreement and furnished a performance security and same having not done, no vested rights are created in petitioner no.1 and that it cannot say that it would accept only some of the conditions of the said letter and would reject the others. He places reliance upon the cases of Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Limited vs. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust and Others reported in (2015) 13 SCC 233, Padia Timber Company Private Limited .vs. Board of Trustees of Visakhapatnam Port Trust, through its Secretary reported in (2021) 3 ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2021 15:11:47 ::: 37 wp1723.20.odt SCC 24 and PSA Mumbai Investments PTE.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 15 - I Banerjee - Full Document

Gupta Sugar Works vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 26 October, 1987

In the case of Gupta Sugar Works .vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 476, it is held that price fixing is neither a function nor a forte of the Court and the Court only examines whether the price determined was with due regard to the considerations provided by the Statute and whether extraneous considerations, have been excluded from determination, as the Court not being an expert cannot substitute it's decision for that of an ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2021 15:11:48 ::: 110 wp1723.20.odt expert.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 32 - K J Shetty - Full Document

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

In the instant case, we have found that the decision as manifested through the impugned communication suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and unreasonableness and it is hit by the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legal malice and that it is not found to be taken in public interest and therefore, on the parameters of said case of Jagdish Mandal (supra), judicial review of the impugned decision is permissible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 887 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Municipal Council Neemuch vs Mahadeo Real Estate on 17 September, 2019

In the case of Municipal Council, Neemuch .vs. Mahadeo Real Estate and Others reported in (2019) 10 SCC 738, it is held that the scope of judicial review of an administrative action is very limited. It is further held that unless the Court comes to a conclusion that the decision-maker has not understood the law correctly that regulates his decision-making power or when it is found that the decision of the decision-maker is vitiated by irrationality and that too, on the principle of "Wednesbury reasonableness" or unless it is found that there has been a procedural impropriety in the decision-making process, it would not be permissible for the High Court to interfere in the decision-making process. It is further held that it is not permissible for the Court to examine the validity of a decision but the Court can examine only the correctness of the decision-making process. What we have examined here is the correctness or otherwise of the decision making process by following these principles of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 56 - B R Gavai - Full Document
1   2 3 Next