SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 340

SANJIV KHANNA, SANJAY KUMAR, K. V. VISWANATHAN
ABCI Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Khanna, AOR Ms. Natasha Sahrawat, Adv. Ms. Deepali Bhanot, Adv. Mr. Gautam Barnwal, Adv. Mr. Rudraksh Pandey, Adv. Ms. Alisha Roy, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Hitarth Raja, Adv. Mr. Udit Dedhiya, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv. Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Adv. Ms. Mahima Kapur, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

What is the legality of enforcing encashment of a bank guarantee when a bid error is clearly evident and promptly disclosed? What are the conditions under which a bidder’s mistake in bid submission may be corrected or relief granted under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Section 20) and related equitable principles? What are the Court’s determinations regarding responsibility for delays and corrective steps in public contract bidding when a bidder commits a unilateral mistake?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the legality of enforcing encashment of a bank guarantee when a bid error is clearly evident and promptly disclosed?

What are the conditions under which a bidder’s mistake in bid submission may be corrected or relief granted under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Section 20) and related equitable principles?

What are the Court’s determinations regarding responsibility for delays and corrective steps in public contract bidding when a bidder commits a unilateral mistake?


JUDGMENT

SANJIV KHANNA, CJI.

Leave granted.

2. This is an avoidable litigation. No doubt, there was a mistake on the part of the Appellant – M/s ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited, albeit, instead of taking a pragmatic approach, Respondent No. 2 – Border Road Organisation [Hereinafter, “BRO.”] under the Ministry of Defence, Union of India, adopted an obdurate and overly legalistic stance, causing a delay in the project's execution.

3. We begin by briefly discussing the facts of the case:

    o On 23.02.2023, BRO invited bids for the design and construction of two-lane twin tunnels, approximately 4.1 kilometres long, at Shinkun La Pass, including civil, electrical, and mechanical work, with approaches connecting the Darcha-Padam Highway to NHDL specifications in Himachal Pradesh and Ladakh. The estimated cost of the project was Rs.15,04,64,00,000/- (Rs. 1,504.64 crores). The project was to be completed within 48 months. The bid security amount was Rs.15,04,64,000/- (Rs. 15.04 crores)

    o Ten bidders, including the Appellant, had submitted their online Technical and Financial Bids on 03.06.2023. The Appellant, like others, had furnished a bank guarantee of Rs.15,04,64,000/-.

    o On 05.06.2023, tec

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top