Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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