Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.28 seconds)
Nivjeevan Yuvak Mandal Shirud Through ... vs The Secretary Ministry Of Chemical And ... on 21 September, 2019 cites

The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019

All these respondents possess the necessary certificates. The learned counsel has taken us through various documents to substantiate her contention about the eligibility of these respondents. The learned advocate submits that, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would possess a limited jurisdiction to interfere in the tender process. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of The Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. The Union of India and another in Special Leave Petitin (C) Nos. 13802-13805 of 2019 decided on 21.06.2019. The learned counsel further submits that, the petitioners did not fulfill the requisite criteria and as such this Court would not entertain the petitions. The same yardstick is applied for all ::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2019 22:54:16 ::: 14 wp 8877.19 tenderers and the decision is arrived at in fair manner after considering all the facts. The same would be non discriminatory. This Court would not entertain the petitions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 312 - D Gupta - Full Document

Central Coalfieds Limited vs Sll-Sml (Joint Venture Consortium) . on 17 August, 2016

11. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that, though these tenderers do not have experience, nor are qualified to sale the medicines, they are issued with the tender for JAK. According to the learned counsel, in respect of one Yashwant Bahuuddeshiy Sewabhavi Sanstha, Beed, its tender is rejected only on the ground that, said institute did not possess experience for sale of medicine, whereas respondents whose tenders are accepted also did not possess the experience to sale the medicine. The decision and action of the respondent No. 3 is arbitrary. The learned advocates for petitioners rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Central Coalfields Limited and another Vs. SLL (Joint Venture Consortium) and others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622 and submit that, the Courts should as far as possible avoid a construction which would render the words used by the author of the document meaningless. The terms in the tender cannot be defeated. According to the learned counsel, the respondents are misinterpreting Clause 4 of the minimum eligibility criteria. Clause 4 does not permit those societies not possessing qualification and experience to sale medicine to be eligible to apply. The Non Governmental Organizations (for short N.G.O's.) having experience to run clinic, hospital without ::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2019 22:54:16 ::: 10 wp 8877.19 possessing any license to sale medicine would not be eligible to apply. According to the learned counsel the arbitrary action of the respondent No. 3 would be open for judicial review.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 9 - Cited by 360 - M B Lokur - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs Sevanivatra Karamchari Hitkari Samiti on 3 January, 1995

The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Sevanivatra Karamchari Hitkari Samiti reported in (1995) 2 SCC 117 and another judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Sher Singh and others Vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 6 SCC 515 so also another judgment in a case of All India Ex-Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Commissioned Officers Welfare Assn. And others vs. Union of India reported in (1995) Suppl.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 28 - G N Ray - Full Document
1   2 Next