Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Judge, J
Sanicons M/s. and Another v. Government of A.P. and Others
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. invocation of guarantees requires conditions specified in itb. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. counter-arguments establish respondents' position. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. legal interpretation clarifies conditions for bid security. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. court ruling emphasizes adherence to bid agreement. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. final ruling issued against unlawful guarantee invocation. (Para 21) |
1. This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in invoking the Bank Guarantees furnished by the 1st petitioner along with its tenders in response to the tender notification dated 5-3-2002.
2. The 1st petitioner claims to be a registered special class Contractor with the department of the Roads and Buildings. The 1st respondent-Superintending Engineer (Rand B), APHM and ECRP, issued a tender notification inviting tenders for widening and strengthening of Mydukur to Tadichearla Road from KM 50/0 to 57/0 and KM 57/0 to 65/0 under Package Nos. 28-C and 28-D respectively. The 1st petitioner submitted its tenders, furnishing the required security as specified in Clause 16.1 of the Instructions to Bidders (ITB), by way of two Demand Drafts i.e., BG.No.2
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
