Petitioner challenged the University's insistence on a deposit for staff salaries post-agreement. Court dismissed the petition as meritorious, noting the petitioner failed to comply with their own written undertaking.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE T.VI NOD KUMAR
WRI T PETI TI ON No.1918 of 2020
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent in insisting on to show a deposit for a sum of Rs.1 crore to meet the salaries of the staff for a period of two months for awarding tender and to declare the same as being arbitrary, illegal and such insistence is not part of the tender notification.
2
____________________
JUSTI CE T.VI NOD KUMAR
Date:05.02.2019
grk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can challenge the respondent's insistence on a bank guarantee deposited afterward after agreeing to it in writing.
Petitioner
Osmania University
T.Vinod Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
