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

2025 Supreme(Guj) 2059

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, R.T. VACHHANI, JJ.
Sherisha Technologies Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Airports Authority of India – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 10372 of 2024, Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2024, Civil Application (For Orders) No. 1 of 2025, Civil Application (Direction) No. 2 of 2025, Civil Application (For Amendment) No. 3 of 2025
Decided On : 28-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Rashesh Sanjanwala, Mehul Parti, Harshita Malik, Maulik Vakhariya, Abhishekkumar C. Malvi
For the Respondents: Dhanesh Patel, Bhadrish Raju, Hasit R. Ved

The clean slate doctrine under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code absolves petitioners from past liabilities post-resolution approval, meaning that debarments prior to acquisition do not affect subsequent bidding processes.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 31 - Clean slate doctrine - Rejection of Technical Bid due to non-disclosure of affiliate's debarment - The rejection is deemed arbitrary as the petitioner is shielded from past liabilities following NCLT approval of the resolution plan - Hence, debarment of affiliate is void post-acquisition - Petitioner unaware of debarment status, and anonymous complaint improperly influenced the decision. (Paras 28, 30, 34)

(B) The requirement to disclose past debarments must align with the statutory provisions under the IBC, which provide for freedom from past liabilities post-resolution approval. (Paras 32, 34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a company holding diverse portfolios, submitted a bid for retail concession at an airport, which was rejected based on a debarment order against its affiliate not disclosed during the bidding process, though the affiliate was acquired post-debarment under a resolution plan. (Paras 4-5)

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the affiliation’s debarment did not apply post-acquisition based on the principle of a clean slate as established by prior jurisprudence, ruling that the technical bid rejection lacked justification. (Paras 28, 34)

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the debarment of the affiliate continued to affect the petitioner post-resolution approval and the procedural fairness regarding non-disclosure obligations during bidding. (Paras 28, 32)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the debarment associated with the affiliate does not persist after the NCLT's approval of the resolution plan, reaffirming the applicant’s stance of a clean slate from older liabilities. (Paras 28, 32)

Result: The technical bid rejection was quashed, and the petition was allowed, directing the respondent to continue with the tender evaluation. (Para 37)

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner-Company has assailed the decision of the respondent-Airports Authority of India, rejecting the Technical Bid submitted on 04.03.2024.

2. The petitioner-Company was informed about the rejection of the Technical Bid vide email dated 04.07.2024.

BRIEF FACTS :

3. The petitioner-Company is incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at No.1/171 Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thiruporur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. It is a multifaceted conglomerate with a diverse portfolio spanning Pharmaceuticals, MedTech, Green Mobility, Renewable Energy, Power Trading and Logistics.

4. The petitioner-Company had acquired the various companies through Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and one of such companies acquired by them is Cura Healthcare Private Limited in January, 2022. The dispute in the present writ petition is directly connected to this Company - Cura Healthcare Private Limited. Pursuant to the Requests For Proposal (RFP), wherein E-bid (Tender ID No.) No.2024AAI-186592-1 was issued by the respondent authorities inviting bids to enter into concession agreement for designing, fitting out, financing, developing marketing, operating, maintaining, and managing the retail outlets at the Rajkot International Airport, Hirasar, Rajkot, the petitioner-Company submitted its Bid, which was rejected by the respondent authorities on 04.07.2024.

5. The said Technical Bid of the petitioner- Company was rejected for the sole reason that the information regarding debarment of Cura Healthcare Private Ltd. by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) vide Memorandum dated 28.06.2021, which was acquired by the petitioner-Company in the year 2022, was not disclosed in the RFP.

SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER :

6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Sanjanwala, appearing for the petitioner-Company has submitted that the National Company Law Tribunal at Chennai (NCLT) in IBA/1325/2019 has appointed the Interim Resolution Professional in the proceedings initiated by one Ms.Gomati, an ex- employee of DE Healthcare Private Ltd. under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against Cura Healthcare Private Ltd, which was subsequently confirmed as a Resolution Professional (RP). The Resolution Professional issued an Information Memorandum dated 24.08.2020 and published an invitation inviting expression of interest from the interested and eligible respective resolution applicants on 08.07.2020 and again on 30.07.2020. It is submitted that during the pendency of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), the Resolution Professional filed an application under Section 19 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) before the NCLT seeking the direction against the unsatisfied management of Cura Healthcare Private Ltd. to extend cooperation by providing the documents sought under Section 19 of the IBC. It is submitted that accordingly, the proceedings further went on and ultimately, the Resolution Plan submitted by the petitioner-Company was approved by the NCLT vide order dated 13.01.2022.

7. It is submitted that as per the condition of the RFP and as required under Form No.1 under Appendix I, the petitioner-Company declared that in the last 03 (three) years, the petitioner or any of the consortium members of their affiliates have neither failed to perform on any contract, as evidenced by the position of penalty by an arbitral award, or judicial authority, or a judicial precedent, nor has been expelled from any project or contract by any public authority, nor have had any contract terminated by any public authority for breach. It is submitted that the petitioner-Company participated in the tender process however, on an anonymous complaint dated 04.05.2024 received by the respondent authorities against the petitioner-Company, the Airports Authority of India, Pune vide email dated 06.05.2024 called upon the petitioner-Company to o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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