Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.45 seconds)
Koduri Suresh Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 May, 2024 cites

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

33. The Apex Court also referred to various earlier judgments in Raunaq International Ltd. V. I.V.R. Construction Ltd9, Air India Limited v. 9 (1999) 1 SCC 492 21 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 Cochin International Airport Ltd10, Karnataka SIIDC Ltd v. Cavalet India Ltd11, Master Marine Services (P) Ltd v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd12, B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd v. Nair Coal Services Ltd13, Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa14 and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. V. State of Karnataka & Ors15 and finally concluded that the Courts should not normally intervene in the decision making process for award of contracts, unless blatant illegality and arbitrariness can be pointed out. The controversy before this Court is to ascertain whether there was any illegality or arbitrariness in the decision making process rather than the question of whether the decision was correct. In the present case, the District Diet Management Committee discharged its duty of finalizing the diet contract in faovur of one diet contractor, thus discharged its duty. Unless, there is blatant illegality and arbitrariness pointed out in awarding the contract to any of the diet contractor, this Court cannot interfere into the matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 782 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Air India vs Cochin International Airport Ltd on 31 January, 2000

26. Learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Raunak International Limited vs. I.V.R. Construction Limited1, Air India Limited vs. Cochin International 1 (1999) 1 SCC 492 17 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 Airport Limited2, Master Marine Services (P) Limited vs. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Limited3, Michigan Rubber (India) Limited vs. State of Karnataka4, Municipal Corporation, Ujjain vs. BVG (India) Limited5 which the learned Single Judge had referred in W.P.No.10457 of 2021 and on the strength of the principles laid down in the above judgments, he would contend that, Courts should not normally intervene in the decision making process for award of contracts, unless blatant illegality and arbitrariness is pointed out. He submits that, the petitioner had committed blatant illegalities, which weighed in decision for awarding contract to Respondent No.5. In the absence of any blatant illegality and arbitrariness, while awarding contract to Respondent No.5, writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 340 - G T Nanavati - Full Document

Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. (Former ... vs The State Of Karnataka, Department Of ... on 13 September, 2007

26. Learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Raunak International Limited vs. I.V.R. Construction Limited1, Air India Limited vs. Cochin International 1 (1999) 1 SCC 492 17 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 Airport Limited2, Master Marine Services (P) Limited vs. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Limited3, Michigan Rubber (India) Limited vs. State of Karnataka4, Municipal Corporation, Ujjain vs. BVG (India) Limited5 which the learned Single Judge had referred in W.P.No.10457 of 2021 and on the strength of the principles laid down in the above judgments, he would contend that, Courts should not normally intervene in the decision making process for award of contracts, unless blatant illegality and arbitrariness is pointed out. He submits that, the petitioner had committed blatant illegalities, which weighed in decision for awarding contract to Respondent No.5. In the absence of any blatant illegality and arbitrariness, while awarding contract to Respondent No.5, writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 163 - A J Gunjal - Full Document

Municipal Corporation vs Bvg India Limited on 27 March, 2018

26. Learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Raunak International Limited vs. I.V.R. Construction Limited1, Air India Limited vs. Cochin International 1 (1999) 1 SCC 492 17 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 Airport Limited2, Master Marine Services (P) Limited vs. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Limited3, Michigan Rubber (India) Limited vs. State of Karnataka4, Municipal Corporation, Ujjain vs. BVG (India) Limited5 which the learned Single Judge had referred in W.P.No.10457 of 2021 and on the strength of the principles laid down in the above judgments, he would contend that, Courts should not normally intervene in the decision making process for award of contracts, unless blatant illegality and arbitrariness is pointed out. He submits that, the petitioner had committed blatant illegalities, which weighed in decision for awarding contract to Respondent No.5. In the absence of any blatant illegality and arbitrariness, while awarding contract to Respondent No.5, writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 142 - M M Shantanagoudar - Full Document

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

In The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. The Union of India and Ors7, the Apex Court reiterated the same principles with regard to maintainability of writ petition in tender of contractual matters, relying on the catena of judgments of Supreme Court, more particularly, Tata Celluar v. Union of India8, wherein the Apex Court laid down six guidelines which are as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 312 - D Gupta - Full Document

M/S Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd vs Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 19 April, 2005

33. The Apex Court also referred to various earlier judgments in Raunaq International Ltd. V. I.V.R. Construction Ltd9, Air India Limited v. 9 (1999) 1 SCC 492 21 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 Cochin International Airport Ltd10, Karnataka SIIDC Ltd v. Cavalet India Ltd11, Master Marine Services (P) Ltd v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd12, B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd v. Nair Coal Services Ltd13, Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa14 and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. V. State of Karnataka & Ors15 and finally concluded that the Courts should not normally intervene in the decision making process for award of contracts, unless blatant illegality and arbitrariness can be pointed out. The controversy before this Court is to ascertain whether there was any illegality or arbitrariness in the decision making process rather than the question of whether the decision was correct. In the present case, the District Diet Management Committee discharged its duty of finalizing the diet contract in faovur of one diet contractor, thus discharged its duty. Unless, there is blatant illegality and arbitrariness pointed out in awarding the contract to any of the diet contractor, this Court cannot interfere into the matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 388 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Mr. B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd vs Nair Coal Services Ltd. & Ors on 31 October, 2006

33. The Apex Court also referred to various earlier judgments in Raunaq International Ltd. V. I.V.R. Construction Ltd9, Air India Limited v. 9 (1999) 1 SCC 492 21 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 Cochin International Airport Ltd10, Karnataka SIIDC Ltd v. Cavalet India Ltd11, Master Marine Services (P) Ltd v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd12, B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd v. Nair Coal Services Ltd13, Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa14 and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. V. State of Karnataka & Ors15 and finally concluded that the Courts should not normally intervene in the decision making process for award of contracts, unless blatant illegality and arbitrariness can be pointed out. The controversy before this Court is to ascertain whether there was any illegality or arbitrariness in the decision making process rather than the question of whether the decision was correct. In the present case, the District Diet Management Committee discharged its duty of finalizing the diet contract in faovur of one diet contractor, thus discharged its duty. Unless, there is blatant illegality and arbitrariness pointed out in awarding the contract to any of the diet contractor, this Court cannot interfere into the matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 458 - S B Sinha - Full Document

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

33. The Apex Court also referred to various earlier judgments in Raunaq International Ltd. V. I.V.R. Construction Ltd9, Air India Limited v. 9 (1999) 1 SCC 492 21 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 Cochin International Airport Ltd10, Karnataka SIIDC Ltd v. Cavalet India Ltd11, Master Marine Services (P) Ltd v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd12, B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd v. Nair Coal Services Ltd13, Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa14 and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. V. State of Karnataka & Ors15 and finally concluded that the Courts should not normally intervene in the decision making process for award of contracts, unless blatant illegality and arbitrariness can be pointed out. The controversy before this Court is to ascertain whether there was any illegality or arbitrariness in the decision making process rather than the question of whether the decision was correct. In the present case, the District Diet Management Committee discharged its duty of finalizing the diet contract in faovur of one diet contractor, thus discharged its duty. Unless, there is blatant illegality and arbitrariness pointed out in awarding the contract to any of the diet contractor, this Court cannot interfere into the matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 887 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 Next