Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)
Afr Sita Devi More & Anr vs The Indian Oil Corporation ..... Opp. ... on 28 October, 2022 cites

The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019

In Silppi Constructions Contractors (supra), the apex Court held that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the Court's interference should be minimal. The authority // 18 // which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 312 - D Gupta - Full Document

Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs M/S Anoj Kumar Agarwala on 23 January, 2019

In view of the above propositions of law laid down by the apex Court, it is made clear that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements. Therefore, the Court's interference should be minimal. More so, the authority which floats the contract or tender and has authored the tender // 20 // documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. Since tender issuing authority is the best judge as to how the documents are to be interpreted, if two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. It is also clarified that if its interpretation is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender documents or subserving the purpose of the tender, the Court would prefer to keep restraint. A caution has also been given that the Constitutional Courts must defer to the understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 49 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Shri Ritesh R. Sah vs Dr. Y.L. Yamul & Ors on 15 February, 1996

11. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioners on Ritesh R. Sah (supra), wherein reservation in the matter of selection for admission to the MBBS course was the subject-matter of consideration and, therefore, the // 17 // principle laid down therein has no application to the present case, as because the tender is a commercial transaction and, as such, the authorities are guided by the terms and conditions of the tender documents itself. If the tender documents do not specify that any reserved category would go to general category, the claim made by the petitioners cannot be admissible. As such, the opposite parties have allowed the reservation policy in obedience to statutory mandate provided in MSEs owned by women. Therefore, even if the petitioners have been shown as L-1, no right has been accrued in their favour to issue LOA as the quota meant for MSEs women being 1 (one) it cannot be given to 3 (three). Therefore, if the determination has been made following the conditions stipulated in the tender documents, in that case the petitioners' claim for issuance of LOA being L-1 against the reserved category of MSEs cannot sustain in the eye of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 463 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1