M/S. SORATH BUILDERS versus SHREEJIKRUPA BUILDCON LIMITED & ANR.

M/S. SORATH BUILDERS versus SHREEJIKRUPA BUILDCON LIMITED & ANR.

The University was justified in not opening the tender submitted late by respondent no. 1; no fault or arbitrariness in rejecting bids received after stipulated date. Sufficient time was provided and strict adherence to tender conditions is required. The High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by interfering in tender terms and process, which caused unnecessary delay and increased cost; courts should not reschedule or direct re-tendering unless clear arbitrariness or prejudice is shown.

Parties
Appellant: M/S. Sorath Builders; Respondent 1: Shreejikrupa Buildcon Limited; Respondent 2: Navsari Agricultural University (University)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of High Court of Gujarat Dated 29.12.2008 in Special Civil Application 14592 of 2008
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Tender Process, Judicial Review of Tender Decisions, Public Contracts
Administrative Law Contract Law Tender Process Judicial Review of Tender Decisions Public Contracts

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S. Sorath Builders

Appellant

Shreejikrupa Buildcon Limited

Respondent 1

Navsari Agricultural University (University)

Respondent 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of High Court of Gujarat Dated 29.12.2008 in Special Civil Application 14592 of 2008

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the time stipulated for submission of pre-qualification documents in the tender was arbitrary or insufficient
  2. 2 Whether the University was justified in rejecting late submission of documents
  3. 3 Scope of High Court's interference in tender selection process

Ratio Decidendi

The University was justified in not opening the tender submitted late by respondent no. 1; no fault or arbitrariness in rejecting bids received after stipulated date. Sufficient time was provided and strict adherence to tender conditions is required. The High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by interfering in tender terms and process, which caused unnecessary delay and increased cost; courts should not reschedule or direct re-tendering unless clear arbitrariness or prejudice is shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and Order of the High Court set aside
  • Decision of University awarding contract to appellant upheld