M/S. S.S. & COMPANY versus ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED

M/S. S.S. & COMPANY versus ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED

The Court held the amendments to NIT No.85/2007 (inserting 'excluding Minor Mineral' in clause 8(i) and deleting the six-month overlap in clause 8(vii)) were neither arbitrary nor mala fide. Deleting the six-month margin was a reasonable measure to prevent an agency from operating concurrently under two contracts at...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: M/s. S.S. & Company; Appellant: M/s. Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals; Respondent: Orissa Mining Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal From the High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Notice Inviting Tender, Eligibility Criteria, Mala Fide Challenge, Experience Clause, Minor Vs Major Minerals, Judicial Review of Tenders
Contract Tenders Administrative Law Mines and Minerals Notice Inviting Tender Eligibility Criteria Mala Fide Challenge Experience Clause +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/s. S.S. & Company

Appellant

M/s. Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals

Appellant

Orissa Mining Corporation Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal From the High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of amendments to clauses 8(i) and 8(vii) of NIT No.85/2007
  2. 2 Whether amendments were mala fide and aimed to exclude particular bidders
  3. 3 Whether experience in minor minerals can qualify as experience for iron ore contracts

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the amendments to NIT No.85/2007 (inserting 'excluding Minor Mineral' in clause 8(i) and deleting the six-month overlap in clause 8(vii)) were neither arbitrary nor mala fide. Deleting the six-month margin was a reasonable measure to prevent an agency from operating concurrently under two contracts at differing rates and to avoid mixing of outputs; excluding minor-mineral experience was a clarification reflecting the Corporation's reasonable requirement for specific experience in iron-ore raising, calibration and transport. SSC in any event failed to meet the original experience requirement and FGM was not prejudiced because its prior contract either continued or entitled...

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • No order as to costs