Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 30860
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.Jayachandran, K.K.Ramakrishnan, JJ
Salma Begam – Appellant
Versus
General Manager – LPG, HPCL (South Zone) – Respondent
REV.APLC(MD).No.29 of 2026 | W.A. (M.D).No.65 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.C.Namburaj
MSME Act Section 6 benefits for women entrepreneurs do not override tender clauses prohibiting unsolicited price bid revisions.
Headnote:First Paragraph: Relevant provisions include Section 6 of the MSME Act, 2006, providing benefits to micro and small enterprises including women entrepreneurs, and Clause 3.7 of the tender document prohibiting unsolicited price bid revisions. The case involves a woman entrepreneur submitting a tender bid at 0% which was later sought to be corrected to L1 rate (-5%) due to alleged error, invoking MSME benefits. The court found the revision contrary to tender terms and not supported by MSME Act privileges. Second Paragraph: Key issue was whether Section 6 of MSME Act overrides tender Clause 3.7 allowing unsolicited price bid correction. Ratio decidendi holds that MSME Act benefits do not permit unsolicited bid revisions violating tender conditions, distinguishing prior judgments. Third Paragraph: Hence, the Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.29 of 2026 stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. msme act section 6 cited but bid revision violates tender clause. (Para 5) |
| 2. disqualification upheld; review petition dismissed. (Para 7) |
O R D E R
The Review Application is filed to review the order passed by this Court in W.A.(MD).No.65 of 2026, on the ground that the writ appellant is a women Entrepreneur running a MSME. The provisions of Section 6 of the MSME Act, 2012, ought to have been taken into consideration while considering the price quotation submitted by the appellant in the tender process.
2. The appellant, who participated in Tender No.2400019406-HD-09050-
Bulk LPG Transportation, Tamil Nadu 2025-30 through the MSME Women Category. Since she indulged in an unsolicited revision of the price bid by invoking Clause 3.7 of the Tender Notification, her bid was not considered. Being aggrieved, she filed the Writ Petition seeking Mandamus to consider the petitioner’s bid with the corrected price at the L1 rate (-5% on base rate). 3. The Learned Single Judge, after considering the grounds of the writ petition and the counter filed by the respondent, dismissed the writ petition, recording the fact that, at the time of submitting the tender, she had quoted 0% as the bid price and later sought for correction of the bid price stating that it was error crept while feeding the application through computer operator. The said contention was not accepted by the Learned Single Judge and being aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Single Judge, the appellant filed Writ Appeal (MD).No.65 of 2026.
4. We considered the plea of the appellant and the representation dated
09.09.2025 made to the respondent seeking to correct the bid amount which will match 1:1 Ratio and found that the unsolicited revision of the price bid was contrary to Clause 3.7 of the Tender Document. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Learned Single Judge. Hence, the present review petition is filed, citing the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in M/s.Reco Process Pumps v. BHEL & Ors., which allowed an MSE Woman entrepreneur to match the L1 price in a bulk supply contract invoking Section 6 of the MSME Act.
5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the review petitioner submitted that if the provisions of the MSME Act are not given effect to, the spirit of the Act would get defeated. It was further contended that Section 6 of the MSME Act will prevail over Clause 3.7 of the Tender Document.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the above submissions.
The disqualification of the petitioner was in respect of the unsolicited revision of the price bid.
7. Hence, the Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.29 of 2026 stands dismissed and it has nothing to do with the privilege granted to women entrepreneurs engaged in MSMEs. No costs.
