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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more