SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Bom) 151

P.V.HARDAS, P.R.BORKAR
MEGA ENTERPRISES – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
.

( 1 ) PER COURT :- Since all these petitions raise a common question, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners questioning the terms of the notice inviting tender, dated 22-1-2007 and in particular clause 3 and clause 6. In order to appreciate the submissions which are advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, it would be useful to reproduce clause No. 3 and 6 of the aforesaid tender notice :

"3. Earnest Money : Unless the earnest money of Rs. 2,18,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Eighteen Lakhs only) through pay order or DD of nationalized Bank or Scheduled Bank in favour of Aurangabad municipal Corporation is paid, the tender form will not be issued.

"6. ELIGIBILITY : The bidder/s shall have experience of minimum one year of collection of octroi of 50 per cent of amount of the estimated offer of realization, and the bidders shall have executed the tender for one full year. The certificate to this effect should have been issued by the municipal Commissioner or the competent authority".

( 2 ) AT this juncture we may point out that a similar challenge had been raised earlier before us
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top