^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

KOTHAMANGALAM AGGREGATES vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDYUTHI BHAVAN
(Kerala High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SHAJI P.CHALY

Pet. Counsel

M.ramesh Chander

K.a.sanjeetha

Balu Tom

Res. Counsel

Raju Joseph

Georgekutty Mathew

P.a.ahamed

Petitioner / Applicant	KOTHAMANGALAM AGGREGATES
Respondent	KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDYUTHI BHAVAN
Court	Kerala High Court
State	Kerala
Date	Apr 6, 2018
Order No.	W.P.(C) Nos.1112, 2221, 2450 & 4034 of 2018
Citation	2018(4) TAXREPLY 3005
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

Related Tags :

☍

Section 171

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

AA |

ORDER
The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of a tender invited by the 1st respondent, Kerala State Electricity Board for supply of 8M and 9M Pre Stressed Concrete Poles (PSC Poles) to the Electrical Circles under Southern and Central Region, for a period of two years, as per Ext.P1 notification dated 28.09.2017. The legal as well as factual contentions raised in the writ petitions are almost typical in nature. For the disposal of the writ petitions, I am relying upon the pleadings and the documents in W.P.(C) No. 1112 of 2018. 2. First petitioner is a registered partnership firm and the 2nd petitioner is its Managing Partner. On invitation of tender by the 2nd respondent, petitioner has submitted the bid. After the tenderers submitted their E-tender, petitioner could gather from the E-tender submitted by the 3rd respondent that it has blatantly violated the conditions stipulated in the tender document. Pursuant to the notification, a pre-bid meeting was con....