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

2025 Supreme(SC) 1653

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.
Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11726 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.1940 of 2025)
Decided On : 09-09-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Devendra V. Chauhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gagan Sanghi, Adv. Mr. Chaitanya Dhruv, Adv. Mr. Nischay Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Santosh Ghate, Adv. Mrs. Farah Hashmi, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kartik Seth, Adv. Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Nikhil Nasre, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Aditi Mishra, Adv. Mr. K.m Abish, Adv. Mr. Manan, Adv. Ms. Shrika Gautam, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Satija, AOR

Tender conditions must be clear; rejection based on non-submission of non-mandatory documents is unjustified.

Headnote:(A) Tendering Process - Validity of Bid - The appellant’s bid was rejected for non-submission of the Joint Venture agreement as per Clause 5

(D) of the NIT; however, the court found no express requirement for this submission, holding that the work execution certificate sufficed to demonstrate participation in the consortium. High Court’s upholding of disqualification was thus unjustified. Clause 5

(B) regarding washery capacity was also addressed, with the court remanding for reconsideration. (Paras 9, 14-21)

(B) Interpretation of Terms in NIT - The court emphasized clear and unambiguous terms in the NIT must be adhered to for bidder compliance, and actions taken without giving opportunity to contest them are impermissible. (Paras 22-24)

Facts of the case:
The appellant participated in a tender for coal beneficiation but was disqualified by the Committee due to missing documentation regarding their consortium. They challenged this decision in court.

Findings of Court:
The High Court upheld disqualification due to non-compliance with terms of the NIT, but the Supreme Court found this arbitrary, requiring review of technical compliance and re-examination of washery capacity.

Issues: The principal issues addressed were whether the JV agreement was mandatory for proving consortium experience and the validity of found washery capacity concerning disqualification.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court’s reliance on ambiguous requirements and failure to provide an opportunity to contest newly raised issues was deemed improper; the committee acted against unwritten principles of fair adjudication.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; High Court’s decision set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of the tender process and bids. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding technical bid disqualification. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. respondent's argument on submission implicitness (Para 7)
4. high court's findings on jv agreement. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. court's analysis on clause interpretation (Para 12)
6. court's analysis of disqualification criteria. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
7. contention on spare washing capacity and remand. (Para 21 , 22 , 24)
8. disqualification under clause evaluation (Para 23)
9. final ruling and remand for further consideration (Para 25)
10. final judgement and decision on appeal. (Para 26)

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

Factual Matrix

2. In response to Notice Inviting Tender1[ID 2024_MPPGC_341576_1, hereinafter referred to as “NIT”.] dated 17.05.2024, issued by the 1st respondent for the purpose of run-of-mine (ROM) coal beneficiation and managing logistics from Western Coalfields Ltd.2[Hereinafter “WCL”.] (Nagpur area) sources for Shree Singaji Thermal Power Project, Khandwa (Madhya Pradesh), the appellant and two others, namely the 2nd respondent3[Rukhmai Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.] and one M/s NN Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. had submitted their bid.

3. As NN Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. could not furnish earnest money deposit, only the appellant and the 2nd respondent remained in the fray. On 04.07.2024, the Tender Evaluation Committee4[Hereinafter referred to as “The Committee”.] while referring to Clause 5(D)5[Clause 5(D): “Past Experience: Copies of successfully executed orders (including part executed) in the name of bidder for same or similar work {similar work means coal lifting from mines of CIL subsidiaries or SCCL area, coal beneficiation (through wet process), movement of washed coal by road from washery to railway siding and movement of washed coal through Railways with experience in liaisoning with Railways/ CIL subsidiaries or SCCL area, i.e., arranging rakes, dispatches coal from own or leased Private siding or Goods shed Railways siding by loading of washed coal into railway wagons through own arrangement with monitoring the rake movement etc. up to the destination Power house}. Bidder is allowed to use past experience of their previous Consortium or JV (proportionate to its share in that consortium if defined in the Consortium Agreement, otherwise, lead partner if not defined in the Consortium) to meet out the past experience criteria of the tender. The order copies should indicate the above w/ork for 4 Lakh MT (4,00,000 MT) quantity or more in stale Owned Power Generating Companies or Other Captive Power Utilities of PSU or NTPC or Govt. Industries / Departments or Semi Govt. Industries / Departments or PSUs or Nodal Agency of any PSUs in India executed in last five years ending with initial date of opening of bid are to be uploaded. This order execution should be within a period of twelve (12) months. It may be through single or multiple orders (in parallel), but in case of multiple orders; these should be within a single span of time period of twelve (12) months.

1. The work execution certificate by the customers along-with self-attested un-priced copies of aforesaid work order(s) should be submitted.

2. For Past performance certificates - If worked with MPEB/ MPSEB/ MPPGCL in past for similar work, then it is mandatory to provide Satisfactory Performance Certificate for the same. Failing this, the offer shall not be considered.” (emphasis supplied)] of the NIT rejected the appellant’s technical bid holding as follows –

    “As per Clause No. 5(D) “Past experience criteria” of NIT, bidder is allowed to use past experience of their previous Consortium or JV (proportionate to its share in that consortium if defined in the Consortium Agreement, otherwise, lead partner if not defined in the Consortium) to meet out the past experience criteria of the tender.

    The firm has used the credentials of their consortium M/s Hind-Maha-Mineral LLP for meeting out the past experience

    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 Back to top