Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.32 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998
18.3) In Raunaq International Ltd., vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. [1999 (1)
SCC 492], this Court dealt with the matter in some detail. This Court held :
Air India vs Cochin International Airport Ltd on 31 January, 2000
"The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public
body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a
commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial
considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a
decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not
open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally
deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be
the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation,
for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation, for
bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may
not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest.
But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to
adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and
cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable
to judicial review, the court can examine the decision-making process and
interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and
arbitrariness. 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 power 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 intervene."
Sterling Computers Limited Etc vs M & N Publications Limited And Ors on 12 January, 1993
18.1) In Sterling Computers Ltd vs. M & N Publications Ltd [1993 (1) SCC
445], this Court observed :
Mr. B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd vs Nair Coal Services Ltd. & Ors on 31 October, 2006
18.6) In B.S.N. Joshi v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. [2006 (11) SCALE 526],
this Court observed :
The Barium Chemicals Ltd. And Anr vs The Company Law Board And Others on 4 May, 1966
Reliance is also placed on the following observations of this Court in
Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. The Company Law Board [1966 Supp. SCR 311] :
Association Of Registration Plates vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 November, 2004
[Emphasis supplied]
18.5) In Association of Registration Plates vs. Union of India [2005 (1)
SCC 679], this Court held:
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
18.2) In Tata Cellular v. Union of India [AIR 1996 SC 11], this Court
referred to the limitations relating to the scope of judicial review of
administrative decisions and exercise of powers in awarding contracts, thus :
1