<?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>2015 (10) TMI 2717 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272427</link>
    <description>PNGRB&#039;s ability to extend time for furnishing a performance bank guarantee after issuance of the letter of intent was upheld where the tender conditions did not expressly prohibit extension and clause 4.7.3 reserved a right to cancel, which also allowed a considered decision not to cancel. The process up to the letter of intent was completed validly under the tie-break mechanism, and the later dispute concerned only compliance with the performance guarantee stage. The extension was treated as a public-interest decision because the selected bidder was offering a substantially larger guarantee and cancellation would have delayed the project. No mala fides, arbitrariness, discrimination, or breach of tender terms was found.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 May 2018 21:06:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518833" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2717 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272427</link>
      <description>PNGRB&#039;s ability to extend time for furnishing a performance bank guarantee after issuance of the letter of intent was upheld where the tender conditions did not expressly prohibit extension and clause 4.7.3 reserved a right to cancel, which also allowed a considered decision not to cancel. The process up to the letter of intent was completed validly under the tie-break mechanism, and the later dispute concerned only compliance with the performance guarantee stage. The extension was treated as a public-interest decision because the selected bidder was offering a substantially larger guarantee and cancellation would have delayed the project. No mala fides, arbitrariness, discrimination, or breach of tender terms was found.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272427</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>