Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways – Appellant
Versus
SD Infra Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
1.Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition, the present writ appeal has been filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
2.1. The first respondent/writ petitioner submitted a bid pursuant to the “Request for Proposal” ( hereinafter referred to as “RFP”) issued by the National Highways Authority for the development of the National Highways, namely, (i) Gorantala–Hindupur and (ii) Mudanur– B. Kothapalli. According to the first respondent/writ petitioner, the opening of the bids was originally scheduled for 05.09.2023 and 19.12.2023. However, the appellants were unable to adhere to the said schedule and extended the validity of the tender on nearly seven occasions. In the meantime, the first respondent/writ petitioner received a letter dated 13.11.2024 seeking clarification, wherein it was stated that a complaint had been received alleging fabrication of documents by the first respondent/writ petitioner.
2.2. At that stage, the first respondent/writ petitioner realized that, owing to an inadvertent error committed by its staff, certain mistakes had crept into the tender documents. Consequently, the first respondent
![Premier Energies Ltd. VS Assam Power Distribution Company Limited [APDCL] - 2022 Supreme(Gau) 432](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Gauhati_2.png)
It is well settled that mere existence of an alternative remedy or an alternative forum does not stand as an impediment on Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of Indi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of jurisdiction, principles of natural justice, and procedural regularities in the tender process, as well as the consequences of ar....
The court established that retention of a forfeited bank guarantee is unjustified when the basis for forfeiture is invalidated by subsequent findings, underlining the jurisdiction of courts in contra....
Forfeiture of bid security must be explicitly stipulated in the contract terms, and failure to bid higher does not equate to withdrawal from the bidding process.
The jurisdiction for tender disputes arose in New Delhi as per exclusive jurisdiction clause, not in States where the bidders operated.
The invocation of Bank Guarantees must be aligned with contractual terms; unauthorized invocation is deemed arbitrary.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
