Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.26 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 27 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Central Coalfieds Limited vs Sll-Sml (Joint Venture Consortium) . on 17 August, 2016
"11. Recently, in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium)[2] it
was held by this Court, relying on a host of decisions that the decision making process
of the employer or owner of the project in accepting or rejecting the bid of a tenderer
should not be interfered with. Interference is permissible only if the decision making
process is mala fide or is intended to favour someone. Similarly, the decision should
not be interfered with unless the decision is so arbitrary or irrational that the Court
could say that the decision is one which no responsible authority acting reasonably
and in accordance with law could have reached. In other words, the decision making
process or the decision should be perverse and not merely faulty or incorrect or
erroneous.
Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons vs Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 27 April, 1989
In Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay[3] it
was held that the constitutional Courts are concerned with the decision making
process.
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
Tata Cellular v. Union of India[4] went a step further and held that a decision
if challenged (the decision having been arrived at through a valid process), the
constitutional Courts can interfere if the decision is perverse. However, the
Page No.# 14/17
constitutional Courts are expected to exercise restraint in interfering with the
administrative decision and ought not to substitute its view for that of the
administrative authority.
Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
This was confirmed in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa[5] as
mentioned in Central Coalfields.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
14. We must reiterate the words of caution that this Court has stated right from the
time when Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India[6] was
decided almost 40 years ago, namely, that the words used in the tender documents
cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous - they must be given
meaning and their necessary significance. In this context, the use of the word 'metro'
in Clause 4.2
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr on 15 September, 2016
18. Subsequent thereto, in the case of Afcons Infrastructure (supra), it
was observed that a disagreement with the decision making process or the
Page No.# 13/17
decision of the Administrative Authority is no reason for the Constitutional Court
to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or
arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be made before the Constitutional
Court before whom interference with a decision making process or the decision
is sought. On the question as regards the terms and conditions of the tender
documents, the Supreme Court in the said decision observed that the owner or
the employer of the project is the best person to understand and appreciate its
requirement and interpret its documents. The Constitutional Court must defer to
this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents unless there is a
mala fide or perversity in the understanding or the appreciation or in the
application of the terms of the tender conditions. It was also observed that the
owner of the employer of the project may give an interpretation to the tender
documents that is not acceptable to the Constitutional Courts but that by itself is
not a reason for interfering with the interpretation so given. Paragraph nos. 11
to 15 of the said judgment being relevant is quoted herein below: