Writ petition challenging apprehension of tender alteration was disposed of as infructuous after respondent counsel stated the proposed amendment was not accepted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Ash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1064 OF 2010
Jinang Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay & Ors.. Respondents
Shri S.U. Kamdar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Y.R. Shah for the Petitioners. Shri E.P. Bharucha, Sr. Advocate with Ms Geeta Joglekar for Respondents.
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J DATE : 10TH AUGUST, 2010
P.C.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed on 3rd May, 2010 on the basis of an apprehension that respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai was going to alter the terms of the tender in respect of the civil works contract for building repair works and allied works in City Eastern and Western Suburbs for period of 1st April, 2010 till 31st March, 2012, particularly in respect of additional security deposit.
2
CHIEF JUSTICE
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J
Jinang Infraproject Pvt. Ltd.
The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay
MOHIT S. SHAH
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court