Skip to main content

Litigation history cannot be attributed to be an essential condition for acceptance of tender

In M.E. Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, the petitioner objected to the Municipal Corporation's decision to accept the tender of Respondents 8 to 10, when they had not disclosed the litigations history of last five years as required in the tender condition.

The Bombay High Court agreeing with the decision of the Corporation held that disclosure of all litigation history is not an essential condition for the tender. It is merely ancillary or subsidiary to the main tender conditions. Prescribing such a condition, calling upon a bidder to provide litigation history is aimed to enable the municipal corporation to take a decision on the acceptability of a tender/bid by examining issues prejudicial to the interest of the municipal corporation, in the context of the tender. There can be no other purpose for prescribing such a condition. It also cannot be countenanced, that by prescribing such a condition, the municipal corporation would expect a bidder to disclose litigation history which is totally non-germane and/or of no relevance to the tender. 

The High Court decided that the municipal corporation has rightly concluded that, the litigation/proceedings, which are pointed out by the Petitioners, not been disclosed by Respondent no. 9 on behalf of Respondent no. 8 to 10, have no relation to the tender in question or anything to do with the past performance, when the tender of Respondent nos. 8 to 10 was eligible technically and commercially, on all the other aspects of the tender conditions. The essential conditions of the tender are required to be strictly complied. The condition in question, of the bidder requiring to submit the litigation history for the past five years, is not an essential condition. 

The Court would necessarily examine the decision making process to ascertain whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is malafide or arbitrary and irrational or is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached, and whether the decision is against public interest. In Central Coalfields Limited, the Supreme Court referring to the decisions in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India and Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa, held that, if an administrative decision, even a deviation in the terms of the notice inviting tender, if it is not arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, malafide or biased the Courts will not judicially review the decision taken. Also the courts would not countenance interference with the decision at the behest of an unsuccessful bidder in respect of a technical or procedural violation. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more