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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

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