Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal, Upholds BEST's Decision to Award Tender

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Date: May 19, 2023

The Supreme Court, in a significant verdict, dismissed an appeal filed by Tata Motors and upheld the decision of the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport (BEST) undertaking to award a tender to EVEY Pvt. Ltd. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Hon'ble J.B. Pardiwala, settled the dispute surrounding the tender process for the procurement of electric buses.

The case revolved around the eligibility of EVEY Pvt. Ltd. and Tata Motors in the tender process conducted by BEST. Tata Motors argued that the acceptance of a revised document by EVEY after the bid submission end date and technical bid opening date was contrary to the tender conditions. However, the court held that the restriction on revising documents only applied to those forming part of the technical bid and did not extend to documents like Annexure Y, which were not mandatory at the time of bid submission.

The court further noted that Tata Motors had deviated from the mandatory requirement of operating range specified in the tender. As a result, Tata Motors was declared a non-responsive bidder at the technical stage. The court upheld BEST's decision to disqualify Tata Motors on this ground.

Regarding the revised Annexure Y submitted by EVEY, the court found that it was a clerical error and allowed BEST's discretion in accepting the revised document. The court emphasized that interfering with the tender process at this stage would be against public interest, leading to additional costs for the state and causing delays in the project's implementation.

The judgment highlighted the need for courts to exercise restraint in contractual and commercial matters, intervening only in cases of arbitrariness, mala fides, bias, or irrationality. It emphasized that the court's role should be limited, especially in matters involving technical expertise beyond the court's domain.

The court also considered the financial implications of issuing a fresh tender notice. It noted that a fresh tender would not be in the public interest, as it could result in higher costs and delays. The court pointed out that similar tenders had been issued in the past, leading to substantial additional expenses for the state. Therefore, it was commercially imprudent to opt for re-tendering.

Supreme Court dismissed Tata Motors' appeal and allowed the tender awarded to EVEY to stand. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to tender conditions, the discretionary powers of employers in accepting bids, and the need to consider public interest and financial implications in tender processes.

Date of Decision: May 19, 2023

TATA MOTORS LIMITED vs THE BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/19-May-2023-TATA-MOTORS-VS-BRIHAN-MUMBAI-ELECTRIC-SUPPLY.pdf"]                      

Latest Legal News