LexLords NRI Legal Services Smethwick By NRI Legal Services LexLords

NRI legal services https://lexlords.com/family/. The petitioner has admittedly constructed a viaduct of not less than 5 km for the prestigious NRI Legal Services Pearl River Delta Intercity high speed railway project in NRI Legal Services China. The civil construction work completed by the petitioner [GYT-TPL JV] in terms of condition no. At this juncture, it is necessary to advert to a standing instruction of the Government of NCT of Delhi dated 12th May, 2006 in which, pursuant to the directions passed by the High Court of Delhi vide order dated 5th May 2005 in C.

The action on the part of the NMRCL of disqualifying the petitioners technical bid is clearly arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. The distinction sought to be made by the respondent NMRCL between the construction of a viaduct for Intercity High Speed Railway Project and the construction of a viaduct for the metro rail project, is illusory and not real. " The learned Attorney-General urges that the principle of classification upon which the differences have been made between cases and offences triable by the Special Court and those by ordinary courts is indicated in the preamble to the Act which runs as follows: 2(a) thereof that a contractor or a joint venture company is required to have the experience in Metro Civil Construction work and of completing a viaduct having a length of not less than 5 kms.

It follows that the amendment of section' 2 clause (14-A) of the Indian Act, by the Finance Act, 1950, so as to authorise the levy of tax on income accruing in the territory of Rajasthan in the year 1949-50 is within the competence of Parliament and therefore valid. 2 (a) was for an intercity high speed railway project in China and in the said contract, the petitioner had completed a viaduct of 7. in length in a Metro Civil Construction work contract and had also received more than INR 3200 million for satisfactorily completing the said contract.

Venkatraman interpreted the said provision to mean that the only persons who were entitled for claim of refund are the manufacturer, his buyer and any other class of persons as notified by the Central Government. Perhaps the best view on this subject is that due process and equality are not violated by the mere conference of unguided power, but only by its arbitrary exercise by those upon whom it is conferred. 354 view taken by the Allahabad High Court since then, and in a very recent pronouncement(1) of that court the learned Judges have expressly approved of the decision of the Calcutta High Court which is in entire agreement with the opinion actually expressed by Sulaiman J.

402 not made bona fide on being satisfied that the petitioner's detention was still necessary but it was "obviously to defeat the present petition". In so doing, what is of significance is contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 which are set out hereinbelow: 1161 of 1988, the Government of NCT of Delhi has fixed various time frames to complete acquisition proceedings. In our view, the petitioner has the experience of constructing a viaduct of not less than 5 kms. " The case cited in support of this view, Plymouth Coal Co.

Pennsylvania(1), is really on authority for (1) 232 U. Willis says at page 586 :- "Is it proper classification to put in one class those who get the consent of a board or of an official and into another class those who do not, where no standard is set up to control the action of the board or official ? The question of bad faith, if raised would certainly have to be decided with reference to the circumstances of each case, but the observations in one case cannot be regarded as a precedent in dealing with other cases.

If that be so, we fail to fathom as to why the technical bid of the petitioner was disqualified though the petitioner has constructed a viaduct for Pearl River Delta Intercity high speed railway project in China of the length of 7. Section 5(1) of the West Bengal Special Courts Act lays down that "A Special Court shall try such offences or classes offences or cases or classes of cases as the State Govern- ment may, by general or special order in writing direct.

The question whether there is any proper classification where no standard is set up by the enactment to control executive action has arisen for consideration before the American courts and has been differently answered. I now come to the other head of arguments put forward by him and the principal point for our consideration is whether the apparent discriminations that have been made in the Act can be justified on the basis of a reasonable classifica- tion.

this question in the affirmative, while other cases answer it in the negative. It is not disputed by the respondent that metro would mean a railway or an underground railway. We find on a reading of the tender conditions and particularly clause 4. We do not appreciate the submission on behalf of the respondent that since the petitioner had constructed the viaduct for a high speed railway project, the petitioner would not have the experience of constructing a viaduct for a metro.