Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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