Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims

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