Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Dhandapani, J
Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of tender dispute and fabricated certificate (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. petitioner's argument: fraudulent practice mandates bid rejection (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. 3rd respondent's defense: no reliance on disputed certificate (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. 4th respondent's defense: limited judicial review, no fraud (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. judicial review principles in tender matters (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 6. analysis of fraudulent practice clause and jwil letter (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 7. no arbitrariness; tender authority's interpretation upheld (Para 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 8. writ petition dismissed (Para 51) |
ORDER
1.Aggrieved by the order in and by which the bid submitted by the 4th respondent has been accepted by the 3rd respondent in rela floated for the purpose of undertaking the project ‘Chennai Ring Main Project’, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the tender notification issued, in which the 2nd respondent was to serve as the execu 3rd respondent was to function as the im
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
