Back
M. R. SHAH, A. S. BOPANNA
National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited – Appellant
Versus
Montecarlo Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 5127 of 2021 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein – original writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the “original writ petitioner”) and has quashed the communications dated 27.04.2021 and 28.04.2021 and the notification dated 28.04.2021 by which the original writ petitioner was informed that its technical Bid has been rejected on the ground that the same is non-responsive and consequently has directed the appellant herein to proceed in accordance with law qua the tender process by further examining the Bid of the original writ petitioner, the original respondent – National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “NHSRCL”) has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the appellant herein – NHSRCL is a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 with equity participation of the Government of India, Government
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Clause 28.1 and Clause 42.5 of the Instructions to Bidders in the context of bid rejection and the rights of ....
Judicial review in public procurement is limited; courts refrain from interference unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith is established.
Judicial interference in the matter of tenders and contracts is limited and the court should exercise restraint in interfering with the administrative decision-making process.
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, the importance of punctilious and rigid enforcement of tender terms, and the uniform application of tender requirements to....
The interpretation of eligibility criteria in public tenders is best determined by the tendering authority, and judicial review is limited to preventing arbitrariness or mala fides.
Point of Law : Court would not sit in the arm chair of experts or the Tender Scrutiny Committee, which has scrutinized and found the 3rd respondent to be responsive and had to be awarded the contract....
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
