X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI - page 15 / 20

54 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

15 / 20

In witness thereof, I/we submit this Bid under and in accordance with the terms of the RFP document.

Yours faithfully,

Date:

(Signature of the Authority signatory)

Place: (Name and designation of the of the Authority signatory)

Name and seal of Bidder/Lead Firm

Note: Paragraphs in square parenthesis may be omitted, if not applicable, or modified as

necessary.

6.

Before proceeding further it is germane to refer to the relevant judicial precedent

cited on behalf of the parties:

(i)

In Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. vs. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. and

Another; (2005) 6 SCC 138, the Supreme Court observed: “It has to be borne in mind that para 11 of the tender instructions clearly conferred a power upon CONCOR to relax the tender conditions at any stage, if considered necessary, for the purpose of finalizing the contract in the overall interest of CONCOR and the trade. Therefore, it felt that having regard to the fact that the Chairman of the Company had a licence under the Insurance Act, the condition regarding the holding of such a licence by the appellant itself, in the facts and circumstances of the case, could be relaxed. So far as commercial considerations are concerned, it is the specific case of CONCOR, which has not been disputed by the first respondent, that 98 per cent of the work under the contract is of data entry of a container, for which the appellant had quoted Rs.3.00 against Rs.3.75 as quoted by the first respondent and for this kind of work no licence from IRDA is required. In such circumstances, no such public interest was involved which warranted interference by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution while undertaking judicial review of an administrative action relating to award of a contract. The High Court erred in setting

aside the order of the CONCOR awarding the contract to the appellant.”

(ii)

In Canara Bank vs. V.K. Awasthy; (2005) 6 SCC 321, the Supreme Court

remarked that: “We may also state that there is yet another line of cases as in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma; (1996) 3 SCC 364, Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P.; (1996) 5 SCC 460 that even in relation to statutory provisions requiring notice, a distinction is to be made between cases where the provision is intended for individual benefit and where a provision is intended to protect public interest. In the former case, it can be waived while

in the case of the latter, it cannot be waived.”

(iii)

In Rajendra Singh vs. State of M.P. and Others; (1996) 5 SCC 460, the Supreme

Court observed:

Document info
Document views54
Page views54
Page last viewedWed Dec 07 09:27:19 UTC 2016
Pages20
Paragraphs542
Words8950

Comments