Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.42 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998
42. Once the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that
27
::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2024 11:49:59 :::
wp-11468-2024 with connected-Final new.doc
they do meet the eligibility criteria, in view of the judgment
in the case of Raunaq International Ltd. (Supra) and Reliance
Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai & Ors. Vs. Maharashtra State
Road Development Corporation Ltd., Mumbai & Ors., reported
in 2011(1) Mh.L.J. 445, no relief at the instance of such
ineligible petitioner can be granted. It is, therefore, not open
for the petitioner, who does not meet the eligibility criteria, to
complain of the award of contract on the ground that its
financial bid offers better terms. The question of comparing
financial bid arises between bidders who are eligible.
The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019
In Silppi Constructions Contractors (Supra), the Court
reiterated the principle that judicial intervention in contractual
matters involving state instrumentalities should be exercised
with caution and restraint. The Court emphasized that
intervention is justified only in cases of overwhelming public
interest and when the decision of the tendering authority is
found to be arbitrary or unreasonable. The Court further
noted that the authority that issues the tender is the best
judge of its requirements, and therefore, minimal interference
is warranted.
M/S Agmatel India Private Limited vs M/S Resoursys Telecom on 31 January, 2022
In the case of Agmatel India (P) Ltd. v. Resoursys
Telecom, (2022) 5 SCC 362, it is held as follows:
Assam Electronics Development ... vs M/S. Educomp Solutions Ltd. And Others on 29 November, 2006
15. On the point of the scope of judicial review and public
interest, relying on the judgments in Raunaq International
Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors. , (1999) 1 SCC 492;
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation
Ltd. & Anr., (2016) 16 SCC 818; SILPPI Constructions
Contractors v. Union of India and Anr. , (2020) 16 SCC 489;
and Assam Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr.
v. Educomp Solutions Ltd. & Ors. , (2006) 13 SCC 563, it is
submitted that the scope of judicial review in the tender
process is limited to determining whether the process adopted
and the decision made by the authority were mala fide,
intended to favor someone, or so arbitrary and irrational that
12
::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2024 11:49:58 :::
wp-11468-2024 with connected-Final new.doc
no reasonable authority acting reasonably in accordance with
the relevant law could have reached such a decision, and
whether public interest is affected. In his submission, if the
answers are negative, there should be no interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Star Enterprises Etc. Etc vs City And Industrial Development ... on 30 April, 1990
In support of this contention, he
cited the judgments in SILPPI Constructions Contractors v.
Union of India and Anr., (2020) 16 SCC 489; Assam
Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Educomp
Solutions Ltd. & Ors., (2006) 13 SCC 563; Aditya Enterprises
v. City Industrial and Development Corporation of
Maharashtra Ltd., (2023) SCC OnLine Bom 876; and M/s. Star
10
::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2024 11:49:58 :::
wp-11468-2024 with connected-Final new.doc
Enterprises and Others v. City and Industrial Development
Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., (1990) 3 SCC 280;
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
"57. .................................... We are inclined to the view that
the writ court has such plenary power/authority and the
same is not curbed by the decisions under consideration.
Gordhandas Bhanji (supra), Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) and
63 Moonds Technologies Ltd. (supra) cannot be read as
precedents precluding a writ court from sustaining an
administrative order of disqualification dehors the
reasons/grounds stated therein, but based on any
reason/ground appearing in the records or from the pleaded
case of the party challenging such order."
63, Moons Technologies Limited ... vs Union Of India & 10 Others on 4 December, 2017
14. Drawing Court's attention to Exhibits C to E, at pages
136 to 139 of the petition, he argued that the contract under
which the petitioner claims experience was not one for
providing manpower, but rather for the preparation, supply,
and distribution of cooked mid-day meals to registered
workers at construction sites, therefore, experience in
engaging manpower for cooking and supplying meals cannot
be equated with providing manpower. Moreover, the
requirement under Condition No.PQ5 is to provide manpower
at external locations, i.e., Government and Semi-Government
establishments. The documents submitted by the petitioner
indicate that the manpower/employees were primarily
engaged at the petitioner's own locations where meal
11
::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2024 11:49:58 :::
wp-11468-2024 with connected-Final new.doc
preparation took place, which does not meet the criterion of
supply to Government and Semi-Government establishments.
Additionally, the documents fail to establish the deployment of
300 workers or work exceeding the value of Rs.25 Crore. The
documents also do not indicate that the work under the said
work order/contract was completed. Relying on the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in Adani Ports and Special
Economic Zone Limited v. Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal
Nehru Port Authority and Others, (2022) SCC OnLine Bombay
1326, it is contended that after considering the judgments in
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi
& Ors., (1978) 1 SCC 405, and 63 Moons Technologies Limited
v. Union of India and Others, (2019) 18 SCC 401, the Division
Bench held that the decisions do not establish a legal principle
that restricts the writ Court's power from looking beyond the
order under challenge to ascertain from external evidence
whether the order can be upheld.
63 Moons Technologies Ltd (Formerly ... vs Union Of India on 30 April, 2019
"57. .................................... We are inclined to the view that
the writ court has such plenary power/authority and the
same is not curbed by the decisions under consideration.
Gordhandas Bhanji (supra), Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) and
63 Moonds Technologies Ltd. (supra) cannot be read as
precedents precluding a writ court from sustaining an
administrative order of disqualification dehors the
reasons/grounds stated therein, but based on any
reason/ground appearing in the records or from the pleaded
case of the party challenging such order."