SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C. Lahoti, CJI., G.P. Mathur, P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
PSEB and others - Appellants
Versus
Bhatia International Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5170 of 2005, Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13654 of 2005
Decided On : 22-08-2005
ORDER :
R.C. Lahoti, CJI.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants invited tenders for supply of coal. NIT is dated 1-4-2005. The tender bids were required to be in two parts: (i) technical bid, and (ii) financial bid. The last date for submitting the tender bid was 27-4-2005. The respondents technical bid was found to be not qualified. There were 22 documents filed by the respondent with tender documents on 27-4-2005. Admittedly, most of the documents, if not all, were forged. The respondent placed the liability for submitting such forged documents on one of its employees. Obviously, the appellants are not concerned with this as it is a matter between the respondent and its employee. Subsequently, the respondent submitted another set of 18 documents, all new, and which were not filed by it with the appellants on or before the expiry of last date for submitting the tender documents. The appellants refused to take these documents into consideration. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court. Vide the impugned order dated 15-6-2005 the High Court finally disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellants herein to consider the technical bid of the respondent herein on the basis of the documents "now submitted" in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Board. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of the High Court, the appellants have filed this appeal by special leave.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the appeal deserves to be allowed. The High Court could not have extended the last date for submitting such documents as were necessarily required to be filed with the tender to make it a valid tender bid. In addition, we find that the petitioner in the High Court (i.e. the respondent before us) whose employee entrusted with the job of submitting the tender filed documents therewith which are admittedly forged should not have been shown any indulgence by the High Court.
4. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court dated 15-6-2005 is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court is directed to be dismissed. The interim order dated 13-7-2005 passed by this Court stands vacated. The appellants shall proceed to finalise the tender bid based on the documents, as were submitted on or before the last date appointed for submitting the tender bid accompanied by documents.
Appeal allowed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.