IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
HFCL Advance Systems Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Centre For Development Of Advance Computing (c-dac) - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 13640 of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous No. 43063 of 2021
Decided On : 04-03-2022
JV - Disqualification of Bid - Companies Act, 1956/2013 - RFP/ tender No. CDaCP/Safety City/MSI/2020/313 - JV agreement, Memorandum of association, articles of association - Disqualification of Bid - JV agreement, Memorandum of association, articles of association not submitted - Dismissal of writ petition
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, HFCL advance Systems Private Limited, filed a petition seeking quashing of communication dated 16.11.2021, disqualifying its bid for RFP tender No. CDaCP/Safety City/MSI/2020/313. The petitioner claimed to be a Joint Venture (JV) with M/s HFCL Limited and M/s Polixel Security Systems Private Limited. The respondent, C-DaC, defended the disqualification, stating that the petitioner did not submit the required JV agreement, Memorandum of association, and articles of association as part of its bid documents, leading to its disqualification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to submit the essential documents required for a JV bid, leading to its disqualification. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the disqualification was not shown to be perverse, mala-fide, or arbitrary.
Issues: The main issue was the disqualification of the petitioner's bid for failing to submit the required JV agreement, Memorandum of association, and articles of association as part of its bid documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's failure to submit the essential documents required for a JV bid justified its disqualification. The court found no reason to interfere with the rejection of the petitioner's bid, as it was not shown to be unreasonable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the disqualification of the petitioner's bid for RFP tender No. CDaCP/Safety City/MSI/2020/313.
JUDGMENT
Jasmeet Singh, J. - The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of communication dated 16.11.2021 issued by respondent No. 1, whereby the petitioner has been communicated its disqualification in respect of RFP tender No. CDaCP/Safety City/MSI/2020/313, for selection of Master System Integrator (MSI) for Implementation, Operation and Maintenance of Surveillance System under Safe City Project of Delhi Police.
2. The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is that the petitioner- HFCL advance Systems Private Limited (hereinafter called 'HaSPL') is a Joint Venture (JV), with M/s HFCL Limited holding 90% shares in the Petitioner company, and M/s Polixel Security Systems Private Limited, holding 10% share. M/s HFCL Limited and M/s Polixel Security Systems Private Limited are both incorporated companies under the Companies act, 1956/2013.
3. Respondent, C-DaC is a Scientific Society of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India, registered under Societies Registration act, 1860, with administration and management of the Society vesting in the Governing Council of the Society, chaired by Union Minister of Communication and IT.
4. On 18.12.2020, the respondent floated RFP/ tender No. CDaCP/Safety City/MSI/2020/313, for selection of Master System Integrator (MSI) for Implementation, Operation and Maintenance of Surveillance System under Safe City Project of Delhi Police.
5. On 30.06.2021, Pre-Bid Corrigendum was issued by the respondent, wherein, the definition of Joint Venture was given for the first time. as per the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to bid for this tender/ RFP as a Joint Venture.
6. The petitioner company was originally incorporated on 23.02.2015 under the Companies act, 1956/2013, as a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s HFCL Limited. For the purpose of convenience, HFCL advance Systems Private Limited for the period from 23.02.2015 till 13thaugust 2021-when HFCL limited transferred 10% equity to Polixel Security System, is referred to as 'HaSPL Pre', and not the Petitioner company.
7. Towards making petitioner a Joint Venture on 13.08.2021, M/s HFCL Limited divested its 10% shareholding in HaSPL Pre, and transferred 10,000 equity shares of face value of Rs. 10/- each- comprising 10% of the paid-up equity share capital of the HaSPL Pre, to M/s Polixel Security Systems Private Limited. as per the petitioner, with the transfer of equity shares on 13.08.2021, the status of HaSPL Pre- changed to a Joint Venture (herein after referred to as 'JV') within the requirement of the RFP document, and within the meaning of Section 2(6)(b) of the Companies act, 2013.
8. In compliance of Form-13 of the RFP, on 17.08.2021, the petitioner ensured execution of JV documents/undertakings/agreement by the members of JV, duly signed by the petitioner, M/s HFCL Limited and M/s Polixel Security Systems Private Limited.
9. On 20.08.2021, the petitioner submitted its bid as a JV. On 02.10.2021, the Technical Evaluation Committee of respondent raised certain Pre-Qualification queries, which were responded to by the petitioner on 07.10.2021.
10. On 12.10.2021, the respondent raised further queries, which were again responded to on 13.10.2021, along with clarificatory documents. Further queries were raised by the respondent on 12.10.2021, which were also responded by the petitioner on 18.10.2021.The petitioner sent further communications to the respondent on 26.10.2021 and 27.10.2021.
11. Eventually, the petitioner was disqualified by the Respondent on the ground that the petitioner did not meet various terms of RFP on 16.11.2021.
12. Consequently, the Petitioner has preferred this petition being aggrieved by its technical disqualification. When the matter came up before this Court on 02.12.2021, while issuing notice, we directed filing of the counter-affidavit within a week, and also directed that 'though the processing of the bids received may be continued in the meantime, the same shall not be fin
AI
Failure to submit essential documents required for a JV bid justifies disqualification.
Joint Venture Agreements must establish joint and several liabilities; non-compliance results in bid rejection.
The court emphasized strict compliance with tender conditions, ruling that the Local Content Certificate must be submitted in the name of the Joint Venture, and deviations from prescribed formats are....
Misrepresentation of facts at the time of bidding amounted to fraudulent practice, justifying the debarment of the joint venture consortium.
The court affirmed that technical disqualification in public tendering must not be hyper-technical if it does not affect the bidder's capacity to perform, emphasizing the importance of fair competiti....
Compliance with tender requirements is essential for bid validity; failure to provide adequate documentation results in disqualification.
The court upheld the validity of tender disqualification based on non-compliance with specified documentation requirements, affirming the decision-making integrity of the evaluation committee.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited; disqualification must be based on clear, justifiable criteria, and actions must not display arbitrariness or bias.
A bid submitted by a joint-venture must be maintained by the entity as a whole; failure to comply with tender requirements results in disqualification.
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.