Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, CJ, SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Ram Krishna Jayara – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. partnership firm's tender bid rejected for missing donee signature on poa. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. power of attorney requires no donee signature per 1882 act. (Para 5) |
| 3. tender clause 4.3(c) mandates signatures for joint venture poas. (Para 6) |
| 4. poa is unilateral; donee acts via own signature with donor authority. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. rejection invalid; clause applies only to joint ventures, not firms. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. writ allowed; include bid in financial evaluation. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, CJ.
1. Heard Shri Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri B.S. Parihar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4.
2. Petitioner is a registered partnership firm comprising of five partners, namely, Shri Khushal Singh Jayara, Shri Manmohan Singh Jayara, Shri Kuldeep Jayara, Shri Kailash Jayara and Shri Deeepak Jayara. On 24.06.2017, a power of attorney was executed in favour of Kuldeep Jayara by other four partners and thereunder authority was given to the donee, i.e., Kuldeep Jayara to participate in any tender matter on behalf of t
Power of attorney is unilateral under 1882 Act, requiring no donee signature; technical bid rejection for its absence invalid; joint venture bidding clause inapplicable to partnership firms. (24 word....
The court upheld the requirement of compliance with mandatory tender conditions, reaffirming that failure to submit necessary documents, like a Power of Attorney, results in bid rejection.
The court ruled that rejection of bids on technicalities lacking a Board resolution is arbitrary, given guidelines on acceptable authorizations under tender conditions.
The court affirmed that tender documents must be signed as per mandatory requirements, interpreting 'may' as 'shall', thus validating the rejection of non-compliant bids.
Adherence to the prescribed format and requirements outlined in the bidding documents is crucial, and failure to comply with mandatory requirements can lead to the valid rejection of a technical bid.
Judicial review in tender matters limited to arbitrariness or mala fides; courts defer to authority's bid compliance assessment, refusing substitution unless perverse.
In tender matters, judicial review is limited; courts defer to tender authority's bid responsiveness assessment unless arbitrary, mala fide or perverse, prioritizing public interest in infrastructure....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of minimal judicial interference in contractual matters involving technical issues, emphasizing the need to uphold tender conditions ....
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
