CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED & ANR. versus SLL-SML (JOINT VENTURE CONSORTIUM) & ORS.

CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED & ANR. versus SLL-SML (JOINT VENTURE CONSORTIUM) & ORS.

Failure to furnish the bank guarantee in the prescribed format as required under the NIT and GTC was sufficient reason for CCL to reject SLL-SML's bid; the employer's decision regarding essentiality is to be respected unless arbitrary or irrational.

Parties
Appellant: Central Coalfields Limited; Appellant: PLR-RPL-SMASL (Joint Venture); Respondent: SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium); Respondent: Others (ORS)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 26.10.2015 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.p.a. No. 625 of 2015
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision of High Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Bidding Process, Tender Compliance, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, Privilege of Participation Principle
Contract Law Administrative Law Bidding Process Tender Compliance Judicial Review of Administrative Action Privilege of Participation Principle

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Central Coalfields Limited

Appellant

PLR-RPL-SMASL (Joint Venture)

Appellant

SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium)

Respondent

Others (ORS)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 26.10.2015 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.p.a. No. 625 of 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether furnishing a bank guarantee in the prescribed format is an essential requirement in the bidding process under the NIT.
  2. 2 Whether a bid not accompanied by a bank guarantee in the prescribed format could be treated as non-responsive under Clause 15.2 of the General Terms and Conditions.

Ratio Decidendi

Failure to furnish the bank guarantee in the prescribed format as required under the NIT and GTC was sufficient reason for CCL to reject SLL-SML's bid; the employer's decision regarding essentiality is to be respected unless arbitrary or irrational.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision of High Court set aside.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court set aside.
  • Rejection of SLL-SML (JVC) bid by CCL upheld.