1. Construction tender — Disqualification petition — Affidavit execution by partnership firm through authorised partner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 16906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Rawani Construction – Appellant
Versus
IRCON International Limited – Respondent
W.P.(C) 9493/2026 | W.P.(C) 9544/2026 | CM APPL. 44145/2026 | CM APPL. 44505/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Susmit Pushkar, Anchit Oswal, Raj Mohan Gupta, Naina Agarwal, Mayank Dubey, Abhisar Vidyarthi
For the Respondents: Sidhant Goel, Aishna Jain, Kratvi Kawdia
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Susmit Pushkar, Anchit Oswal, Raj Mohan Gupta, Naina Agarwal, Mayank Dubey, Abhisar Vidyarthi
For the Respondents: Sidhant Goel, Aishna Jain, Kratvi Kawdia
A bidder cannot be disqualified for not having all partners sign an affidavit if the tender format specifies "Authorized Representative" and a valid Power of Attorney is provided, as such a requirement would be hyper-technical and contrary to the legal nature of affidavits.
Headnote:(A) Tender Law - Technical Evaluation - Disqualification based on signature of Affidavit - Where the tender format specifies that the affidavit is to be signed by the "Authorized Representative of the Firm", disqualifying a partnership firm because all partners did not sign the affidavit is arbitrary and hyper-technical, especially when a valid Power of Attorney was provided. (Para 10, 11)
(B) Law of Affidavits - Nature of Deposition - A common affidavit signed by multiple partners without individual verification is contrary to the nature of an affidavit; a single authorized partner swearing on behalf of the firm is legally valid and sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a declaration. (Para 13, 14, 16)
(C) Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Agency - A partner acting through a duly authorized Power of Attorney is competent to swear an affidavit for and on behalf of the firm and its partners, binding the other partners in the ordinary course of business. (Para 18)
Issues: Whether the disqualification of bidders on the ground that the Affidavit was not signed by all partners of the partnership firm was arbitrary and contrary to the tender's own format.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- contract law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners: Affidavit validly signed by authorised partner. Respondents: All partners must sign per EQC Clause 7. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Format of Annexure IV and Clause 7 of EQC are contradictory. Execution by authorised partner is legally sufficient. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
4. Affidavit by authorised partner under Power of Attorney binds all partners and satisfies tender condition. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
5. Petitions allowed. Disqualification set aside. Respondents directed to process bids. Costs not awarded. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
6. Can an affidavit for a partnership firm be validly signed by one partner holding a Power of Attorney from all partners?
Yes. The court held such execution is legally valid and binds all partners under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
7. Does a contradiction between a tender's prescribed format and an explanatory clause invalidate the format?
The court found the format gave a distinct impression the affidavit could be signed by an authorised representative, and the clause requiring all partners to sign created ambiguity. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
8. What is the effect of a failure to notarise a common affidavit with multiple deponents as per tender requirements?
The court observed it would be physically impossible to properly notarise a common affidavit for multiple deponents, making such compliance a farce. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
9. Should an affidavit requirement be interpreted strictly or with an eye to its underlying objective?
The underlying objective of securing a binding undertaking was satisfied by the affidavit sworn by the authorised representative. (Para 17 , 19 )
10. Is it permissible for a court to set aside a tender disqualification for non-compliance with an ambiguous condition?
Yes, the court can set aside such disqualification where the condition is contradictory and the bidder's compliance was reasonable. (Para 23 , 25 , 26 , 29 , 31 )
JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
1. The present petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, with respect to the disqualification of the Petitioner(s) by Respondent No. 1 vide its „Summary of Technical Evaluation Report‟ dated 10.07.2026 [„impugned report‟] in relation to tender dated 19.01.2026 for Construction of MSME, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises technology centre at Nagpur (Maharashtra) under the scheme „Establishment of New Technology Centre/Extension Centre‟ [„impugned Tender‟].
1.1. Petitioner No. 1/Rawani Construction in W.P.(C) 9493/2026 is a partnership firm and is aggrieved by the rejection of its Affidavit dated 18.03.2026 filed as per the format of Annexure IV in compliance of the tender conditions.
1.2. Similarly, Petitioner/Trishul Constructions in W.P.(C) 9544/2026 is a partnership firm and is also aggrieved by the rejection of its Affidavit dated 18.03.2026 filed as per the format of Annexure IV in compliance of the tender conditions.
2. The Affidavit, as per the format of Annexure IV, with the bid, has been filed by the respective Petitioner firm(s) through one of its partners duly authorized by a Power of Attorney [„PoA‟]. Respondent No. 1/IRCON International has raised an objection that the Affidavit ought to have been signed by each of the partners and not merely by the partner who holds the PoA.
3. The common issue arising for consideration in these petitions is whether the Affidavit submitted by the bidder as per Annexure IV complies with the tender conditions or not?
4. The parties agree that the issue is common, and common arguments have been addressed by the counsels. Accordingly, W.P.(C) 9493/2026 is dealt with as the lead matter to decide the rival contentions.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE PETITIONERS
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners stated that Respondent No. 1 released a Notice Inviting Tender [„NIT‟] dated 19.01.2026 being e-Tender No. IRCON/B1100009/MSME/e-Tender/EPC/TC Nagpur/ET48 on behalf of its Client/ Owner, i.e. the Respondent No. 2/Union of India, for Construction of MSME Technology Centre at Nagpur (Maharashtra).
5.1. He stated that Petitioner No. 1 submitted its bid for the impugned Tender on 18.03.2026, along with the requisite documents. The Affidavit submitted by Petitioner No. 1 was as per the format provided in Annexure IV of Section III-Instructions to Tenderers [„ITT‟], and was duly signed by its Authorized Representative, Petitioner No. 2/Mr. Amit Rawani. However, Petitioner No. 1‟s bid was disqualified on the sole ground that the „Affidavit was not signed by all the partners‟. Consequently, the financial bid of Petitioner No. 1 was not opened by Respondent No. 1.
5.2. He stated that the bidders were required to execute and submit the bidding documents in the format prescribed under the impugned Tender. The prescribed format of the Affidavit was provided in Annexure IV of Section III of the ITT, to be submitted pursuant to Clause 26(b) of the ITT, Clause 4 of the Essential Qualifying Criteria [„EQC‟], and Sub-Clause 10.2 of the ITT. The Affidavit enclosed in Annexure IV provides that it is required to be „Signed by the Authorized Representative of the Firm‟. It is stated that Petitioner No. 1, therefore, executed the Affidavit through Authorized Representative, as per the instructions recorded on the format.
Furthermore, he stated that the clauses for the Affidavit referred to in Annexure IV don‟t state or require it to be signed by all partners if the bidder is a partnership firm. Thus, the requirement of signing the Affidavit by all partners in case a bidder is a partnership firm is not mandatory/essential as per the bidding documents.
5.3. He stated that the format of the Affidavit at Annexure IV does not cross-reference Clause 7 of the EQC at Annexure V, and Petitioners, despite exercising due diligence, while executing the Affidavit as per Annexure IV, did not understand that Respondent No. 1
