<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (6) TMI 388 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328679</link>
    <description>Tender eligibility turns on the plain and contextual meaning of the tender terms. Where the notice invited participation by an individual or a company and other clauses contemplated the company&#039;s seal and authorised representatives, the word &quot;Company&quot; was held to bear its ordinary meaning under the Companies Act and not to include a firm. Reliance on Section 366 of the Companies Act was found inapplicable, and other statutes cited for interpretation were treated as irrelevant to the tender conditions. The respondent firm was therefore ineligible to participate, its exclusion was justified, the High Court&#039;s contrary view was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2016 17:38:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=431175" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 388 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328679</link>
      <description>Tender eligibility turns on the plain and contextual meaning of the tender terms. Where the notice invited participation by an individual or a company and other clauses contemplated the company&#039;s seal and authorised representatives, the word &quot;Company&quot; was held to bear its ordinary meaning under the Companies Act and not to include a firm. Reliance on Section 366 of the Companies Act was found inapplicable, and other statutes cited for interpretation were treated as irrelevant to the tender conditions. The respondent firm was therefore ineligible to participate, its exclusion was justified, the High Court&#039;s contrary view was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328679</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>