Delhi High Court opined that, if the orders passed by this Court would not be implemented, it would lead to a situation where each department of the Government would be raising objections to the statement made by the other department.
Calcutta High Court observed that the Courts should refrain from interfering in the grant of contracts or licenses unless there is clear arbitrariness or malafide conduct.
Supreme Court viewed that the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, which was considering an appeal against a judgment of a Single Judge rejecting the writ petition, ought to have proceeded with circumspection.
“The notice is required to state the grounds necessitating the action and the penalty proposed specifically and unambiguously and is also required to adhere to the principles of natural justice”
“The aim of fostering diverse supplier base can serve as counterbalance to intrinsic challenges posed by oligopsonistic market. By discouraging market domination by single entity, tender conditions are designed to mitigate the risks associated with limited buyer options, thereby creating more level playing field for all market participants.”
“Engaging in opportunistic litigation undermines the fairness and credibility of the tendering process, creating an environment of unpredictability. Such practices must be strongly discouraged to ensure the integrity of the tendering system of procurement.”
Allahabad High Court said that the proceedings against the petitioner based only on inspection report is arbitrary.
Inviting tenders from the entities mentioned in paragraph 4(vi)(b) of the National AYUSH Mission Operational Guidelines is the most transparent and non-arbitrary method of allocation that can be undertaken. Hence, the appellant must henceforth purchase Ayurvedic medicines only through a free and transparent procedure such as tenders, and deviation from this rule to procure medicines by nomination can be done, only if exceptional circumstances exist.
Allahabad High Court viewed that the tender authority, has been given a certain degree of leverage by the courts, being the best person to understand its requirements. Hence, a mere disagreement with the authority's decision-making process is not a reason for a constitutional court to interfere.
The citizens, through the various social media platforms cause havoc to the nation and degrade the credibility and respect which the other countries around the globe have on Mother India
Supreme Court: In an important ruling of Goods and Service Tax (GST), the bench of KM Joseph* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ has
Calcutta High Court: Shampa Sarkar, J. decided on a petition which was filed for a direction upon the respondents 7 and 8
Supreme Court: Explaining the law on abandonment on contractual obligation, the bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ has held that
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of M. R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., held that if a tentative decision is taken
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: The Division Bench comprising of Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Mohan Lal, JJ., directed the Union
“Natural justice is the sworn enemy of intolerant authority”
“High Court has used the word writ petition is disposed of. Once the writ of mandamus was issued, instead of disposing of the writ petition, the High Court ought to have allowed the writ petition.”
Delhi High Court: Deciding the issue of whether World Bank is a government agency or not, the Division Bench of Vipin Sanghi
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J., refused to interfere in the interim arbitral award whereby the sole arbitrator had allowed certain claims of
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of S.C. Gupte and M.S. Karnik, JJ., expressed that for an employer to come to a