Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 849

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPAL, AMIT MAHAJAN, JJ.
M/s Sapphire Media Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Nbcc Services Limited And Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 4147 of 2026, CM APPL. 20278 of 2026, CM APPL. 20279 of 2026, CM APPL. 20280 of 2026, CM APPL. 22033 of 2026
Decided On : 11-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Varun Singh, Ms. Deepika Kalia, Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Ms. Kajal Gupta, Mr. Deepashu Shakargaye, Ms. Urvashi Chauhan, Ms. Khushi, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. N Prabhakar, Mr. Uday Sharma & Mr. Shailesh Sharma, Advs., Mr. Nakul Sehgal & Mr. Prem Kandpal, Advs. along with AR

Judicial review in public tenders permits courts to intervene when decision-making is arbitrary or irrational. Agencies cannot disqualify bidders on hyper-technical grounds by excluding clarifying documents that are submitted pursuant to a specific request for revision, as this undermines competitive bidding and public value.

Headnote:(A) Public Tenders - Scope of judicial review - Administrative discretion - Principles of fair play and avoidance of arbitrariness - The court does not sit as an appellate authority over administrative decisions but maintains oversight over procedural propriety, reasonableness, and the absence of irrationality - The primary object of a tender process is to maximize public value through a fair, transparent, and competitive process - Judicial intervention is warranted when disqualification rests on hyper-technical grounds that contradict the broader goal of public interest and participation. (Paras 15, 29)

(B) Tender Conditions - Clarification and revision of documents - Permissibility - When an authority invites clarifications regarding submitted documents, rejecting subsequent submissions on the ground that they are 'fresh' or new documents is impermissible when those documents fulfill the underlying objective of the bidding criteria - Procedural hyper-technicality that excludes valid bids unnecessarily contradicts the interest of the public exchequer. (Paras 28, 29)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the disqualification of its bid in a tender for interior and fitout work. The disqualification related to the bank solvency certificate requirement. After the initial submission, the respondent invited clarifications and revisions. The petitioner provided updated certificates, which were subsequently rejected by the respondent on the grounds that they were 'fresh documents' and that the underlying data did not meet specific, implied time-period requirements regarding the solvency record.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the tender documents were ambiguous regarding the specific timeframe for the underlying financial data of the solvency certificates. It held that the rejection of the revised certificates as 'fresh documents' was arbitrary, as the submission was made in direct response to the respondent's own request for clarification. The court underscored that procedural fairness and the maximization of public value should remain the focus of evaluation committees, rather than rejecting bidders on non-substantive procedural barriers.

Issues: Whether the disqualification of the bid on grounds of technical non-compliance with the solvency certificate requirement was arbitrary, and whether the rejection of revised documents during the clarification stage was justified under the tender terms.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that when tender authorities invite clarifications, they cannot interpret their own request in a way that creates hyper-technical barriers to entry. By rejecting genuine documentation submitted to rectify perceived defects, the authorities acted against the competitive and fair nature of public procurement.

Result: The disqualification was set aside, and the administrative authority was directed to consider the bid in accordance with the established tender conditions.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the tender dispute and disqualification. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties' contentions regarding tender eligibility and document submission. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. judicial review criteria in tender matters and prevention of hyper-technical exclusions. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
4. order setting aside disqualification and directing reconsideration of the bid. (Para 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. By the present petition, the Petitioner challenges the disqualification of its Technical Bid, communicated vide email dated 28.03.2026 pertaining to the Tender No. NSL/CEO/IIAC/NIT/2026/845 for “Interior and Fitout work for IIAC at 4th & 5th, Tower A, World Trade Centre, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi” for “India International Arbitration Centre issued by Respondent No. 1.

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts circumscribing the adjudication of the present petition are as follows:

2.1. On 14.03.2026, Respondent No. 1 issued a tender for Interior and Fitout work for the India International Arbitration Centre. The last date and time of submission of the online tender was up to 23.03.2026 by 11 PM. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 31,64,86,727/-. As per the Notice Inviting Tender (‘NIT’), the eligibility criteria required the bidder to furnish, inter alia, in Form E, a self-certified Bank Solvency Certificate issued by a Nationalised or Scheduled Bank for an amount that was not less than 40% of the estimated cost of work and issued within 6 months from the original last date of submission of tender. The relevant clause is reproduced as follows:

“Self-Certified copy of Bank Solvency Certificate issued from Nationalized or any Schedule Bank should be one in number for at least 40% of the estimated cost of the project put to tender. The certificate should have been issued within 6 months from original last date of the submission of the tender.”

2.2. The Petitioner submitted its comprehensive bid including a financial offer of Rs. 20,67,29,130.08/- on 22.03.2026. Along with the Bid, the Petitioner submitted two solvency certificates – one issued by Axis Bank dated 30.08.2025 and another issued by Kotak Mahindra Bank dated 12.03.2025. By communication dated 24.03.2026, Respondent No. 1 issued certain technical objections and sought clarifications regarding the Petitioner’s financial documentation. Amongst other things, the communication dated 24.03.2026 specified that the Bank Solvency Certificate submitted by the bidder/Petitioner was not in line with the uploaded NIT. The same is reproduced as follows:

“Bank solvency certificate is submitted by the bidder, however the submitted solvency certificate is not inline with the uploaded NIT “Self-Certified copy of Bank Solvency Certificate issued from Nationalized or any Schedule Bank should be one in number for at least 40% of the estimated cost of the project put to tender. The certificate should have been issued within 6 months from original last date of the submission of the tender”, the bank solvency certificate submitted is beyond the period of 6 months earlier from the date of the submission of the NIT (Expired). Further, solvency certificate submitted by the bidder is in the name of NBCC (India) limited and maha Mumbai metro operation limited. Revised solvency certificate to be submitted issued by the bank from the date prior to the last date of the submission of the Tender as per NIT.”

2.3. The clarification sought required the Petitioner to submit query related documents by 25.03.2026 up to 5 PM positively. In response thereof, the Petitioner submitted two certificates – one issued by Kotak Mahindra Bank dated 23.03.2026 ( Rs. 35 crores) and another issued by PNB dated 11.02.2026. On 28.03.2026, Respondent No. 1 issued an email, thereby disqualifying the Petitioner for “not meeting the eligibility criterion” without assigning any reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the Petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 849

Cases Referred (1)