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

2021 Supreme(Del) 2442

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
Sabre GLBL Inc. - Appellant
Versus
Air India Limited - Respondent
W.P.(C) 6046 of 2021 & CM Appl. 19132 of 2021
Decided On : 17-11-2021

Advocates appeared:
Sandeep Sethi and Gopal Jain, Sr. Advs. with Dheeraj Nair, Manish K. Jha, Akshit Mago and Ms. Vishrutyi Sahni, Advs., for the Petitioner.
Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Padma Priya, Dhruv Nayar, Tavinder Sidhu, AP Singh, Sukrit Seth, Sanjeevi Seshdh

Headnote:(A) Tender Evaluation Process - The petitioner sought the invalidation of the tender award, citing favoritism towards the successful bidder in the evaluation process. (Paras 1-2, 3-4).

(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, stressing that the technical evaluation is best left to experts (Paras 28-30).

(C) Procedural Compliance - Although some deviations from internal norms were identified in the tender evaluation, the court found no substantial prejudice that warranted interference in the tender process (Paras 39-49).

(D) Public Interest - The urgency of appointing a new service provider was highlighted, with the court noting the substantial benefits to AIL's operations in a competitive market. (Para 48). (E) Result - Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks quashing of tender award. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. respondent no.1's financial status and tender details. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bid submission and evaluation criteria outlined. (Para 7 , 8)
4. pre-bid conference addressed queries. (Para 10 , 11)
5. allegations of favoritism in evaluation of bids. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
6. validity of evaluation process and transparency. (Para 24 , 25)
7. details on respondent no.2's experience and qualifications. (Para 30 , 31)
8. judicial review principles in tender evaluations. (Para 37 , 38)
9. court's rationale for non-interference in tender process. (Para 40 , 41)
10. public interest and urgency in procurement process. (Para 46 , 48)

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking substantially the following prayers:

    a) "Issue a writ of certiorari or mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring and setting aside the award of Tender No: AIL/21-22/PSS/01 dated 31.03.2021 issued by the Respondent No.1 for Appointment of a Service Provider for providing Integrated Passenger Services Systems to Respondent No.2, as invalid and non-est;

    b) Issue a writ of certiorari or mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside the LOI or the contract, if any, entered between the Respondents for Appointment of a Service Provider for providing Integrated Passenger Services Systems for Air India Limited, pursuant to the award of the Tender No: AIL/21-22/PSS/01 dated 31.03.2021 issued by the Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.2;

    c) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the Respondent No.1's decision dated June 8, 2021, as communicated to the Petitioner vide e-mail of the even date, declaring Petitioner unsuccessful for award of Tender No: AIL/21-22/PSS/01 dated 31.03.2021, as illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law;

    d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the Petitioner as Successful Bidder and directing the Respondent No. 1 to formalise and award the contract for Appointment of a Service Provider for providing Integrated Passenger Services Systems for Air India Limited to Petitioner in Tender No: AIL/21-22/PSS/01 dated 31.03.2021;

    e) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari commanding the Respondent No.1, to produce the entire records of the award of Tender No: AIL/21-22/PSS/01 dated 31.03.2021 to Respondent No.2, including, the records containing evaluation of the technical and financial bids by the Respondent No.1, the technical and financial scores received by the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2, and all other relevant records/file noting containing the basis of formation of opinion for issuing the Tender to Respondent No.2

    f) Issue a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the Respondent No.1, during the pendency of the present Writ Petition, from giving Letter of Intent or executing any contract or proceeding with and/or taking any steps pursuant to their decision to award Tender No: AIL/21-22/PSS/01 dated 31.03.2021 to Respondent No.2....... "

(emphasis supplied)

2. The Petitioner claims that it is a leading software and technology company that powers the global travel industry, serving a wide range of travel companies including airlines, hoteliers, travel agencies and other suppliers. The Petitioner is headquartered in Southlake, Texas, USA and serves in more than 160 countries around the world and is a leading technology solutions provider. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has pioneered online travel agencies, corporate booking tools, revenue management, and web and mobile itinerary tools, amongst others.

3. It has further been submitted that the Petitioner's technology platform manages more than USD 260 Billion worth of global travel spend annually and is one of the world's largest providers of airline and hotel technology. The customer base of the Petitioner includes American Ai



















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