Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tata Motors Limited vs The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply And ... on 19 May, 2023
10. Upon perusal of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Tata Motors Limited (Supra), as the Apex Court has
categorically held that judicial review in contractual matters must be
exercised with great restraint and only in cases where clear
arbitrariness, mala fides, bias or irrationality is demonstrated, this Court
finds that no such exceptional circumstance is made out in the present
case. The dispute raised by the petitioner essentially pertains to non-
release of alleged contractual dues and involves disputed questions of
fact, including the actual execution of work, correctness and authenticity
of entries in the Measurement Book, and the identity of the executing
agency, which require detailed examination of evidence. Such issues
cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. The scope of judicial review in contractual
matters being limited, and in absence of any material to establish
arbitrariness or illegality in the decision-making process of the
respondents, this Court is not inclined to interfere. Accordingly, in light of
the settled legal position, the present petition is misconceived, devoid of
merit, and is liable to be dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to
10
avail appropriate alternative remedies available under law.
The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019
The courts should not use a magnifying
glass while scanning the tenders and make every small
mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts
must give "fair play in the joints" to the government and
public sector undertakings in matters of contract.
Courts must also not interfere where such interference
will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer.
(See: Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of
India, (2020) 16 SCC 489).
Association Of Registration Plates vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 November, 2004
52. Ordinarily, a writ court should refrain itself from
imposing its decision over the decision of the employer
8
as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer
unless something very gross or palpable is pointed out.
The court ordinarily should not interfere in matters
relating to tender or contract. To set at naught the
entire tender process at the stage when the contract is
well underway, would not be in public interest. Initiating
a fresh tender process at this stage may consume lot
of time and also loss to the public exchequer to the
tune of crores of rupees. The financial
burden/implications on the public exchequer that the
State may have to meet with if the Court directs issue
of a fresh tender notice, should be one of the guiding
factors that the Court should keep in
mind. This is evident from a three-Judge Bench
decision of this Court in Association of Registration
Plates v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2005)
1 SCC 679.
Air India Ltd. vs Cochin International Airport Ltd. on 31 January, 2000
53. The law relating to award of contract by the State
and public sector corporations was reviewed in Air
India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., reported
in (2000) 2 SCC 617 and it was held that the award of
a contract, whether by a private party or by a State, is
essentially a commercial transaction. It can choose its
own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to
grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons, if the tender
conditions permit such a relaxation. It was further held
that 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 powers 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 interfere.
Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
54. As observed by this Court in Jagdish Mandal v.
State of Orissa and Others, reported in (2007) 14 SCC
517, that while invoking power of judicial review in
matters as to tenders or award of contracts, certain
9
special features should be borne in mind that
evaluations of tenders and awarding of contracts are
essentially commercial functions and principles of
equity and natural justice stay at a distance in such
matters. If the decision relating to award of contract is
bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not
interfere by exercising powers of judicial review even if
a procedural aberration or error in assessment or
prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. Power of judicial
review will not be invoked to protect private interest at
the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual
disputes."
State Of Bihar And Others vs Jain Plastics And Chemicals Limited on 21 November, 2001
In view of the foregoing analysis and the settled position of law as
enunciated in the case of Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. (supra)
and Joshi Technologies International Inc., (supra) this Court is of the
considered opinidsupra) and Joshi Teri petition, involving seriously
disputed questions of fact relating to the award of contract, execution of
work, and entitlement to payment, is not amenable to adjudication under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has failed to
establish a clear and undisputed legal right warranting interference in
writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003
13. Though in "ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee
Corporation of India Ltd.", 2004 (3) SCC 553, the Hon'ble Apex Court
recognized that a writ petition may be maintainable in contractual
matters in limited circumstances, it was clearly observed that such
jurisdiction is to be exercised where the facts are undisputed or where
the State action is patently arbitrary, unreasonable, or in violation of
Article 14. The present case does not fall within such an exception, as
the very substratum of the petitioner's claim is contested.
Joshi Technologies International Inc vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 May, 2015
In view of the foregoing analysis and the settled position of law as
enunciated in the case of Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. (supra)
and Joshi Technologies International Inc., (supra) this Court is of the
considered opinidsupra) and Joshi Teri petition, involving seriously
disputed questions of fact relating to the award of contract, execution of
work, and entitlement to payment, is not amenable to adjudication under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has failed to
establish a clear and undisputed legal right warranting interference in
writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.