Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Contract Awarded Illegally, Minister's Interference Confirmed, Compensation Awarded</h1> <h3>M/s Subhash Projects & Marketing Ltd. Versus West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd.</h3> The High Court concluded that the contract awarded to Subhash Projects was illegal due to undue interference by the Minister of State for Power, leading ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the contract award to Subhash Projects.2. Interference by the Minister of State for Power.3. Compensation to L & T.4. Evaluation of tenders and adherence to guidelines.5. Role and conduct of the Power Corporation and the Ministry of Power.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Contract Award to Subhash Projects:The Division Bench of the High Court concluded that the contract awarded to Subhash Projects was illegal. The original tender process was marred by vagueness and required several clarifications and modifications. Despite L & T's revised bid being the lowest, undue pressure from the Minister of State for Power led to the contract being awarded to Subhash Projects. The High Court found that Subhash Projects secured the contract through dubious means and directed it to pay compensation to L & T.2. Interference by the Minister of State for Power:The High Court found that the Minister of State for Power unduly interfered in the tender process by pressuring the Power Corporation to award the contract to Subhash Projects. The Minister's actions were deemed improper and not in public interest. The Union of India contested these findings, arguing that the Minister acted within his public duty. However, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's observations, noting the persistence and manner of the Minister's interference as 'strange.'3. Compensation to L & T:The High Court directed Subhash Projects to pay Rs. 1 crore to L & T as compensation for the illegally awarded contract. This amount was considered less than 10% of the profits Subhash Projects would have earned. The Supreme Court agreed with this compensation, finding it reasonable and advantageous to Subhash Projects. The Court also directed Subhash Projects to pay interest on the amount from the date of the High Court judgment.4. Evaluation of Tenders and Adherence to Guidelines:The tender evaluation process was flawed due to the vagueness in the notice inviting tenders and the subsequent need for clarifications and modifications. The Power Corporation, its consultants, and the Tender Evaluation Committee initially recommended awarding the contract to L & T based on its revised lowest bid. However, the Minister's interference led to a re-evaluation that favored Subhash Projects. The Supreme Court found that the original evaluation process, which placed L & T as the lowest tenderer, was justified and that the guidelines were not properly applied.5. Role and Conduct of the Power Corporation and the Ministry of Power:The Power Corporation's initial handling of the tender process was found to be in order, but it succumbed to pressure from the Ministry of Power. The Ministry's insistence on adhering to clause 5.03 of the guidelines, despite the clarifications and revised bids, was deemed unjustified. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings that the Power Corporation was forced to award the contract to Subhash Projects due to undue pressure from the Ministry.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals by Subhash Projects and the Union of India, upholding the High Court's judgment. The Court directed Subhash Projects to pay Rs. 1 crore with interest to L & T and allowed L & T to recover the amount as a decree if necessary. The Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's findings and compensation directive, ensuring that the judgment addressed the improprieties in the tender process and the undue influence exerted by the Ministry of Power.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found