Tag: Government Contracts

Supreme Court Quashes Chhattisgarh’s Tender Rule, Upholds “Level Playing Field” for Businesses
29Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Chhattisgarh’s Tender Rule, Upholds “Level Playing Field” for Businesses

The Supreme Court struck down a tender condition requiring prior supply experience within Chhattisgarh as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The condition was held arbitrary for creating an artificial barrier, restricting competition, and offending the doctrine of a level playing field without a rational nexus to the tender's object. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a company with experience supplying Sports Kits to various other states, challenged specific eligibility conditions in three tender notices issued by the State of Chhattisgarh for the supply of Sports Kits to government schools. The company was aggrieved by condition no. 4, which required bidders to have supplied sports goods worth at least Rs. 6.00 crores to Sta...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Level Playing Field, Strikes Down Arbitrary Tender Clause
27Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Level Playing Field, Strikes Down Arbitrary Tender Clause

The Supreme Court struck down a tender condition requiring prior supply experience within Chhattisgarh as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The condition was held arbitrary for creating an artificial barrier, restricting competition, and offending the doctrine of a level playing field without a rational nexus to the tender's object. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a company with experience supplying Sports Kits to several other states, challenged specific eligibility conditions in three tender notices issued by the State of Chhattisgarh for the supply of Sports Kits to government schools. The company was aggrieved by condition no. 4, which required bidders to have supplied sports goods worth at least Rs. 6.00 crores to state gov...
Read More
Public Interest Isn’t Just Revenue: Supreme Court Prioritizes Tender Sanctity Over Higher Bid
1Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Public Interest Isn’t Just Revenue: Supreme Court Prioritizes Tender Sanctity Over Higher Bid

The Supreme Court held that post-tender rectification of a financial bid is impermissible as it undermines the sanctity and finality of the tender process. Judicial interference in tender awards is unwarranted absent mala fides, arbitrariness, or perversity. The terms of the tender document, which expressly prohibited changes to the bid, are binding on the parties. Facts Of The Case: The State of West Bengal invited bids for a Road User Fee collection contract. Mandeepa Enterprises (Respondent No. 1) participated and was found technically qualified. Upon opening the financial bids, Prakash Asphaltings (the Appellant) was declared the highest bidder (H1) at ₹91.19 crores for the 1095-day contract, while Mandeepa was the lowest (H4) at approximately ₹9.73 lakhs. After this resu...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: Port Tariffs Must Be Set By Experts, Not Arbitrators
14Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Port Tariffs Must Be Set By Experts, Not Arbitrators

The Supreme Court held that tariff fixation for port facilities is a technical and expert-driven function, best adjudicated by specialized bodies like TAMP. It emphasized that contractual agreements cannot override statutory tariff-setting mechanisms under the Major Port Authorities Act, 2021. The Court remanded the matter to TAMP for fresh determination, underscoring the need for expert appraisal of tariff revisions and compliance with natural justice. Facts Of The Case: A bilateral agreement was executed in 1985 between Paradip Port Trust (now Authority) and Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. (PPL), then a public sector unit, for the exclusive use of a captive fertilizer berth. The agreement stipulated a tariff schedule, with a clause for future mutual enhancement. In 1993, the Port unilaterally...
Read More
Promises Must Be Kept: Supreme Court Protects Industry from Unexpected Tariff Hikes by State Board
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Promises Must Be Kept: Supreme Court Protects Industry from Unexpected Tariff Hikes by State Board

The Supreme Court held that the electricity board was estopped from resiling from its contractual obligation to provide a concessional tariff after having sanctioned, agreed, and partially implemented it. The board's unilateral withdrawal of the concession after over two years was deemed arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, an existing industrial unit with a Low Tension (LT) power connection, underwent significant expansion by installing a large induction furnace, which necessitated a High Tension (HT) or bulk power supply. It applied for this new connection in 1998. The respondent electricity board, after inspection, sanctioned the HT connection via a memo that explicitly stipulated the appellant’s eligibility for a 25% concessional tarif...
Read More