Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Maan Pharmaceuticals Limited – Appellant
Versus
Gujarat Medical Services Corporation Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the petitioner’s tender bid and subsequent issues. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner argues against the risk purchase recovery process. (Para 4) |
| 3. respondent defends actions based on tender terms. (Para 5) |
ORDER :
ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel Mr. Utkarsh Sharma waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. By the present Special Civil Application, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus to quash and set aside the order dated 02.01.2025 passed the respondent Corporation of effecting the recovery of Rs.93,29,525/-from the other ongoing contracts of the petitioner as being arbitrary and illegal.
3. The factual matrix in the present case is that the respondent Corporation published the tender notice bearing No.GMSCL/Drugs/D- 669/RC/2021 for supply of different tablets, capsules, injections, miscellaneous and surgical items as mentioned therein. That the petitioner herein submitted its bid for Amoxicillin Capsules 500mg having item code No.1016 mentioned at serial No.6 of the tender notice. The petitioner
The court reaffirmed that deductions from contracts must adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring prior notification and justification for any recovery actions.
The court ruled that the respondent's unilateral deductions from payments violated principles of natural justice, requiring adherence to contract clauses and valid justification for any recovery acti....
The decision to blacklist a contractor must follow due process and communicate the intended action clearly in the show cause notice. Non-supply of essential goods during a pandemic can justify blackl....
A debarment order is not justified if the party being debarred has not violated any contractual obligations, the apprehensions of the other party are not material considerations, the debarment order ....
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot adjudicate disputes arising from contracts or address complex questions of fact needing evidence.
The rejection of the petitioners' bid was justified based on their debarment for supplying substandard quality drugs, in line with the State's policy to keep such manufacturers out of the tender proc....
Tender bid valid 180 days from submission; post-expiry forfeiture of EMD and debarment invalid without extension. Debarment requires prior show cause notice per natural justice principles.
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
