<?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 (7) TMI 1626 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299050</link>
    <description>In judicial review of a government tender, cancellation to invite fresh bids was upheld where the tender conditions departed from the standard documents and only one responsive bid remained after the pre-bid stage. The Court held that, under contractual clauses reserving power to reject bids and cancel the process, the tender authority could act to secure wider competition. Judicial review was limited to whether the decision was vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or collateral purpose. As no mala fides or lack of bona fides was shown, the High Court could not substitute its own view on competition or financial implications, and interference was unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Dec 2021 08:51:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=662584" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1626 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299050</link>
      <description>In judicial review of a government tender, cancellation to invite fresh bids was upheld where the tender conditions departed from the standard documents and only one responsive bid remained after the pre-bid stage. The Court held that, under contractual clauses reserving power to reject bids and cancel the process, the tender authority could act to secure wider competition. Judicial review was limited to whether the decision was vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or collateral purpose. As no mala fides or lack of bona fides was shown, the High Court could not substitute its own view on competition or financial implications, and interference was unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299050</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>