Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.32 seconds)
Telangana Mineral Development ... vs Gkr Infracon India Private Limited on 27 March, 2025 cites

Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1981

4. The rejection of their bid is challenged by respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the premise that the writ appellants did not conduct the tender process and awarding of the tender in fair and transparent manner by referring to the legal ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dharmapal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others 1, PKF Sridhar and Santhanam v. Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India (WP(C) No.12385 of 2021), Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India 2 and Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another v. EMTA Coal Limited and others 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 primarily questioned the action of writ appellants in rejecting the tender without assigning reasons and 1 (2015)8 SCC 519 2 AIR 1981 SCC 818 3 (2022)2 SCC 1 3 without giving them hearing for giving clarification on their Work Done Certificate. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition referring to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India holding that decision making process adopted by the writ appellants is contrary to principles of natural justice and lacking in transparency in the tender process. It is held that no reason is assigned for rejecting respondent No.1's bid as failing to have fulfilled clause 3.2 tender conditions. In the light of the respondent No.1's specific case that it fulfilled the requirement under clause 3.2 of the tender conditions. It is held that as per the entry made in e-procurement web portal on 19.07.2024, the writ appellants have clearly observed that respondent No.1 has fulfilled the eligibility criteria referring to the contents of Remarks column which are extracted and produced below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 542 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. vs Emta Coal Limited on 21 September, 2021

4. The rejection of their bid is challenged by respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the premise that the writ appellants did not conduct the tender process and awarding of the tender in fair and transparent manner by referring to the legal ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dharmapal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others 1, PKF Sridhar and Santhanam v. Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India (WP(C) No.12385 of 2021), Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India 2 and Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another v. EMTA Coal Limited and others 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 primarily questioned the action of writ appellants in rejecting the tender without assigning reasons and 1 (2015)8 SCC 519 2 AIR 1981 SCC 818 3 (2022)2 SCC 1 3 without giving them hearing for giving clarification on their Work Done Certificate. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition referring to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India holding that decision making process adopted by the writ appellants is contrary to principles of natural justice and lacking in transparency in the tender process. It is held that no reason is assigned for rejecting respondent No.1's bid as failing to have fulfilled clause 3.2 tender conditions. In the light of the respondent No.1's specific case that it fulfilled the requirement under clause 3.2 of the tender conditions. It is held that as per the entry made in e-procurement web portal on 19.07.2024, the writ appellants have clearly observed that respondent No.1 has fulfilled the eligibility criteria referring to the contents of Remarks column which are extracted and produced below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 16 - B R Gavai - Full Document

M/S Agmatel India Private Limited vs M/S Resoursys Telecom on 31 January, 2022

8. In that context, it is argued that any bidder has to produce certificate showing satisfactorily completed work of value not less than Rs.12,05,06,825/- during the last three years of the bid. It is argued that among 12 technical qualified bidders, 8 were rejected for 5 not complying tender clause 3.2 and the same was informed through e-procurement website on 08.07.2024. Respondent No.1 is one among 8 bidders whose tender was rejected for failing to meet the criteria. The learned Additional Advocate General argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments held that in contractual matters the scope of judicial review or interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India is available in exceptional circumstances, such as, on account of mala fides, arbitrariness and illegalities. Whereas, in the instant case, no specific instance of malice is made out. Only because respondent No.1 failed to satisfy the condition under clause 3.2 of tender condition its bid was rejected which is not arbitrary. The learned Additional Advocate General referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Agmatel India Private Limited v. Resourys Telecom and others 4, wherein it is held that "The above mentioned statements of law make it amply clear that the author of the tender document is taken to be the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements; and if its interpretation is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserving the purchase of the tender, the Court would prefer to keep restraint. Further to that, the technical evaluation or comparison by the Court is impermissible; and even if the interpretation given to the tender document by the person inviting offers is not as such acceptable to the constitutional court, that, by itself, would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation given."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 73 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir & Another on 9 May, 1980

In that regard, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshi Reddy, rep. by its partner Shri Kasturi Lal and others v. State of Jammu and Kahsmir and another 5, wherein it is held that "15.........Where the government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or granting other forms of largess. the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its, sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with some standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The governmental action must not be 5 (1980)4 SCC 1 8 arbitrary or capricious, but must be based on some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance..."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 364 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Ashok Lenka vs Rishi Dikshit & Ors on 21 April, 2006

Likewise in the matter of Ashok Lanka v. Rishi Dikshit 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the allegations are made in the rejoinder, when no new plea can be permitted in the rejoinder, without the leave of the Court, such allegations cannot be relied 6 (1981)2SCC 484 7 (2006)9SCC 90 14 upon. While legal precedents do not support respondent No.1's allegations made in the rejoinder for the first time attributing mala fides, we are of the considered opinion that the contents of the web portal dated 19.07.2024 are also mis-interpreted on account of the fact that the tender evaluation process has been completed by 08.07.2024 and the letter of intent was issued to the successful bidder on 10.07.2024 and said information was uploaded in the website on 19.07.2024. Last but not least, after the bids are evaluated, the eligible bidder has been selected by way of lottery in the presence of all the bidders. The learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that even respondent No.1 participated in the lottery process that took place on 10.07.2024 and therefore, no mala fides can be attributed to reference Nos.1 and 2, as the entire process has been conducted in transparent manner as per the tender process contemplated in the tender conditions as well as notification. When the successful bidder is selected through the process of drawing lots in the presence of all the eligible bidders, no mala fides can be attributed to the writ appellants in conducting the tender process in fair and transparent manner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 38 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Pkf Sridhar And Santhanam vs Airports Economic Regulatory ... on 6 January, 2022

4. The rejection of their bid is challenged by respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the premise that the writ appellants did not conduct the tender process and awarding of the tender in fair and transparent manner by referring to the legal ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dharmapal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others 1, PKF Sridhar and Santhanam v. Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India (WP(C) No.12385 of 2021), Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India 2 and Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another v. EMTA Coal Limited and others 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 primarily questioned the action of writ appellants in rejecting the tender without assigning reasons and 1 (2015)8 SCC 519 2 AIR 1981 SCC 818 3 (2022)2 SCC 1 3 without giving them hearing for giving clarification on their Work Done Certificate. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition referring to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India holding that decision making process adopted by the writ appellants is contrary to principles of natural justice and lacking in transparency in the tender process. It is held that no reason is assigned for rejecting respondent No.1's bid as failing to have fulfilled clause 3.2 tender conditions. In the light of the respondent No.1's specific case that it fulfilled the requirement under clause 3.2 of the tender conditions. It is held that as per the entry made in e-procurement web portal on 19.07.2024, the writ appellants have clearly observed that respondent No.1 has fulfilled the eligibility criteria referring to the contents of Remarks column which are extracted and produced below:
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - V Sanghi - Full Document
1