Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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.
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: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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

        Court Validates Hotel Project Bid Process, Upholds Letter of Intent

        Larsing M. Versus Meghalaya Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. and Anr.

        Larsing M. Versus Meghalaya Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. and Anr. - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Validity of the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued to Respondent No. 2.
        2. Compliance with pre-qualification criteria and evaluation criteria in the bidding process.
        3. Allegations of arbitrary and discriminatory actions by Respondent No. 1.
        4. Eligibility of Respondent No. 2 to participate in the tender process.
        5. Transparency and legality of the tender process.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Validity of the Letter of Intent (LOI) Issued to Respondent No. 2:
        The petitioner challenged the LOI dated 23.6.2007 issued to Respondent No. 2 for the Crowborough Hotel project. The petitioner argued that Respondent No. 2 did not meet the eligibility criteria and that the tender process was flawed. However, the court found that the bidding process was conducted transparently, and Respondent No. 2 was the highest bidder, quoting Rs. 98.99 crores compared to the petitioner's Rs. 90.61 crores. The court concluded that the decision to award the LOI to Respondent No. 2 was justified and did not warrant interference.

        2. Compliance with Pre-qualification Criteria and Evaluation Criteria in the Bidding Process:
        The petitioner contended that the respondent did not clearly define the financial criteria in the bid documents, violating the principles of transparency. The court noted that the Evaluation Committee initially decided to assess financial criteria on a "point based scale" and later fixed specific turnover and net worth criteria. However, these criteria were not included in the EOI. The court held that the absence of specific criteria in the EOI did not constitute a deviation from the tender terms, as the sliding criteria were for internal assessment. The court emphasized that the petitioner did not challenge the EOI at the relevant time and could not do so after participating in the process.

        3. Allegations of Arbitrary and Discriminatory Actions by Respondent No. 1:
        The petitioner alleged that the respondent arbitrarily changed the financial criteria to favor Respondent No. 2. The court examined the minutes of the Evaluation Committee meetings and found that the criteria were amended to adopt the sliding scale based on the consultant's recommendation. The court concluded that the changes were made transparently and were not arbitrary or discriminatory. The court also noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any substantial prejudice due to the adoption of the sliding criteria.

        4. Eligibility of Respondent No. 2 to Participate in the Tender Process:
        The petitioner argued that Respondent No. 2, a coal dealer with no experience in the hotel industry, did not meet the eligibility criteria. The court found that Respondent No. 2 had a valid management contract with T.K. International Ltd., a reputed hotel industry, which satisfied the requirement for a consortium. The court also noted that the petitioner did not submit a solvency certificate in the name of Centre Point Group Enterprise and lacked a valid management contract with ITC Welcomgroup. Thus, the court held that Respondent No. 2 was eligible to participate in the tender process.

        5. Transparency and Legality of the Tender Process:
        The court emphasized that judicial review in contractual matters focuses on the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision. The court found that the tender process was conducted transparently, with the aim of maximizing revenue for the state. The court noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any overwhelming public interest that would require judicial intervention. The court concluded that the tender process did not suffer from illegality, procedural impropriety, or arbitrariness.

        Conclusion:
        The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to challenge the tender process and failed to demonstrate any substantial prejudice or public interest that warranted judicial intervention. The court vacated the interim order and directed the parties to bear their respective costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found