RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
Larsen and Toubro Ltd. having its registered office at L and T House – Appellant
Versus
SJVN Thermal (P) Ltd. – Respondent
CAV JUDGMENT :
Petitioner is one of the bidders.
2. This writ application is seeking to challenge the decision of the respondent no.1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the employer’ or ‘the respondent no.1 Company’) whereby the respondent no.1 Company has extended the prescribed date and time for submission of bids as mentioned in the Invitation for Bidders (in short ‘IFB’). The application goes on to say that if the respondent no.4 could not submit its bids by prescribed time in the IFB read with clause 6.1 of the Instruction to Bidders (‘ITB’) and the time lapsed, the respondent nos.1 Company could not have extended the time and the extension is nothing but a favour shown to accommodate the respondent no.4. The legality and validity of Amendment No. ‘24’ and Amendment No. ‘25’ as contained in Annexure- ‘5’ and ‘6’ respectively to the writ application have been questioned even before opening of the technical bid.
3. Learned senior counsel for the parties have argued the matter at length and this Court acknowledges their assistance rendered to this Court.
Brief facts of the case
4. The respondent no.1 is a wholly owned subsidiary of SJVN Ltd. which in turn is a joint venture of the G
Tata Cellular Limited Vs. Union of India (AIR 1996 SC 11)
Sterling Computers Vs. M& N Publications Limited and others (AIR 1996 SC 51)
Sorath Builders Vs. Shreejikrupa Buildcon Limited and Anr. reported in (2009) 11 SCC 9
W.B. SEB Vs. Patel Engineering Company Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 451
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa
Michigan Rubber (India) Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216
Central Coalfields Limited and Anr. Vs. SLL-SML reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622
Poddar Steel Coporation Vs. Ganesh Engineering Works reported in (1991) 3 SCC 273
State of Jharkhand and others Vs. CWE- Soma Consortium reported in (2016) 14 SCC 172
Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. G.S. Investments reported in (2007) 1 SCC 477
Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. IVR Construction Ltd. And others reported in (1999) 1 SCC 492
Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651
Mannai Investments Co. Ltd. v. Eagle Star Life Assurance Co. Ltd. (1997) AC 749
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Anr. Vs. N.R. Vairamani & Others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 579
Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. And Others reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India
CCCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985) 1 SCC 260 : 1985 SCC (Tax)75
Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra
Union of India Vs. International Trading Company reported in (2003) 5 SCC 437
Meerut Development Authority Vs. Association of Management Studies reported in (2009) 6 SCC 171
G.J. Fernandez. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (1990) 2 SCC 488
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.