Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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