Back
B.R.SARANGI, SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Kamala Agencies – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of petitioner and the tender process (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against exclusion (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations and reasoning (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 4. judicial principles and legal reasoning applied (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81) |
| 5. final order of the court (Para 82 , 83) |
B.R. SARANGI, J.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that Petitioner, being a registered Dealer, Whole-seller, Supplier and Distributor of veterinary drugs, medicines, vaccines, chemicals, veterinary instruments and equipments having valid registration and permission from the State as well as Central Government Authorities, has been supplying the items, as mentioned above, to various Government/Semi-Government Organizations a
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
