Tender Law IV

“Recently in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., 2016 (8) SCALE 765 a Two-Judge Bench eloquently exposited… “We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The Constitutional Courts must […]

Read more "Tender Law IV"

Tender Law III

“Recently, in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) it was held by this Court, relying on a host of decisions that the decision making process of the employer or owner of the project in accepting or rejecting the bid of a tenderer should not be interfered with. Interference is permissible only if the […]

Read more "Tender Law III"

Tender Law II

The party issuing a tender (employer) ‘has the right to punctiliously and rigidly’ enforce the terms of the tender. Here is a wholesome principle that the Courts have been following for a very long time and which was articulated in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, (1979) 3 SCC 489: ‘where a power is given to […]

Read more "Tender Law II"

Tender Law I

While authorities are given latitude in formulating tender conditions, the Court has been consistent in requiring adherence to conditions once framed, and has entered into fairly detailed scrutiny of administrative decisions. “The law is settled that an essential condition of a tender has to be strictly complied with. In Poddar Steel Corporation, (1991) 3 SCC […]

Read more "Tender Law I"