Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Government contracts

BANSHIDHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. versus BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED & OTHERS

The Technical Bid Committee's rejection of the appellant's technical bid for alleged non-compliance with Clause 10 of the NIT was arbitrary because the appellant had a duly executed Power of Attorney in the prescribed format and submitted all required documents before the last date; simultaneously, accepting respondent no.8's technical bid despite its failure to submit mandatory audited annual reports at the time of bid submission and permitting post-opening supplementation was illegal and discriminatory. The impugned decision and any consequential actions or agreements are set aside and the…

Source excerpt

  • Tender
  • Technical bid
  • Eligibility criteria
  • Article 14 - equality and arbitrariness
  • Power of attorney
  • Audited annual reports
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

M/S INDIAN MEDICINES PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION LTD versus KERALA AYURVEDIC CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.

Paragraph 4(vi)(b) of the National AYUSH Mission Operational Guidelines places IMPCL and other Central/State PSUs, pharmacies under State Governments and cooperatives on an equal footing; the State's procurement of Ayurvedic medicines exclusively from IMPCL by nomination without inviting tenders was arbitrary and violative of Article 14. Procurement must ordinarily be through a transparent process such as tenders; deviation from tendering is permissible only in exceptional circumstances supported by cogent material.

Source excerpt

  • Article 14
  • Tendering
  • State largesse
  • Judicial review of government contracts
  • National ayush mission operational guidelines
Read case analysis
Government contracts

VAISHNORANI MAHILA BACHAT GAT versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

The imposition of tender conditions by the State of Maharashtra—requiring specific technology, high turnover, and district-based units—was arbitrary and not in accordance with the National Food Security Act, 2013, Supreme Court orders, and central policy; such conditions were invalid and exclusionary of genuine local Mahila Mandals/self-help groups. The tender notice was struck down and the State was directed to invite fresh tenders strictly in line with policy and observations made in the judgment.

Source excerpt

  • Tender eligibility
  • Arbitrariness
  • Decentralisation
  • Integrated child development scheme
  • Supplementary nutrition
  • Self-help groups
Read case analysis
Tender law

MAHARASHTRA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYV. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. versus SHAPOORJI PALLONJI & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

In absence of technical failure and evidence of valid completion of the bid process as confirmed by NIC, the first respondent's bid was not a valid submission. High Court directions to consider the invalid bid amounted to granting a second opportunity, which is impermissible; such directions are set aside.

Source excerpt

  • E-tender submission process
  • Bid validity
  • Procedural requirements
  • Technical glitches in tendering
Read case analysis
Government contracts

HAFFKINE BIO-PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION LTD., GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA UNDERTAKING THROUGH MANAGER versus M/S. NIRLAC CHEMICALS THROUGH ITS MANAGER & ORS.

The tender opening process was vitiated due to non-compliance with Central Vigilance Commission guidelines as the bid of the successful bidder was not opened in the presence of the unsuccessful bidder. However, the unsuccessful bidder also did not satisfy all tender conditions, specially the requirement to generate business for the tendering company for 70 million doses, hence its bid was not technically qualified. In the interest of justice, pending orders are directed to be placed with the unsuccessful bidder, and fresh tenders are to be floated with clear terms.

Source excerpt

  • Tender process
  • Central vigilance commission guidelines
  • Public procurement
Read case analysis
Administrative law

CONSORTIUM OF TITAGARH FIREMA ADLER S.P.A. - TITAGARH WAGONS LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, TITAGARH TOWERS, 756, ANANDAPUR, E. M. BYPASS, KOLKATA- 700 07, WEST BENGAL versus NAGPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. (NMRCL) HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT METRO HOUSE, BUNGALOW NO. 28/2, ANAND NAGAR, C.K. NAIDU ROAD, CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER (PROCUREMENT) & ANR.

Respondent No. 2, a government company, could bid as a single entity relying on experience of its wholly owned subsidiaries, and the interpretation placed by respondent No. 1 was neither perverse nor tainted by arbitrariness, bias, or malafide; courts should not interfere in the technical evaluation in exercise of judicial review absent such grounds.

Source excerpt

  • Judicial review
  • Tender evaluation
  • Bid eligibility criteria
  • Public interest in government contracting
Read case analysis
Government contracts

M/S. NORTHERN COALFIELD LTD. versus HEAVY ENGINEERING CORP. LTD. & ANR.

Orders of High Court rejecting the plaint solely on the ground of absence of COD permission are unsustainable as COD is dissolved; government corporations retain the right to seek judicial adjudication of disputes, and arbitral awards via non-statutory machinery are unenforceable unless accepted by both parties. All outstanding disputes between the appellant and the respondent corporation are referred to arbitration before a sole arbitrator appointed by the Supreme Court.

Source excerpt

  • Dispute resolution between government corporations
  • Requirement of committee on disputes clearance
  • Enforceability of administrative arbitral awards
  • Adjudication of commercial disputes
Read case analysis
Government contracts

STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. versus M/S CWE-SOMA CONSORTIUM

The government has the right to cancel a tender, even if only one responsive bid exists, and such decision is valid if made to foster competition and is not arbitrary or unreasonable; the High Court erred in interfering with this discretion without evidence of mala fide or arbitrariness.

Source excerpt

  • Tender process
  • Judicial review
  • Government discretion
  • Public procurement
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

STATE OF KERALA & ORS. versus M.K.JOSE

The Appellate Bench erred in exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 by making a roving enquiry through commissioners and relying on their report to quash the contract termination, especially given the disputed factual matrix, which is inappropriate for writ adjudication in contractual matters.

Source excerpt

  • Article 226
  • Judicial review
  • Contract termination
  • Public works contracts
Read case analysis
Contract law

NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD. versus M/S. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

Where earnest money is deposited under contractual terms that specifically allow forfeiture upon withdrawal of tender or bid, the withdrawal by the bidder before acceptance does not entitle the bidder to a refund, Section 5 of the Contract Act, 1872 notwithstanding; bidder is bound by the special conditions and forfeiture is valid.

Source excerpt

  • Forfeiture of earnest money
  • Withdrawal of bids
  • Special conditions of contract
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.