TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section. Similarly, reliance placed for interpreting ‘company’ on several other statues such as the Income Tax Act, Negotiable Instruments Act, Employees State Insurance Act and Minimum Wages Act etc. is wholly irrelevant. On reading of the terms of the NIT it is clear that the word “Company” can only mean a company as understood under the Companies Act and cannot be read to include a firm. The word “Company” in the NIT is incapable of any other meaning.The NIT makes it absolutely clear that only an individual or a company is eligible to participate in the tender. Since Respondent No. 1 is neither an individual nor a Company but a firm, Respondent No. 3 was fully entitled to reject the bid of the said respondent. Under the circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lving excavation and removal of any mineral including sand in State/Central Government Undertaking or large Public Limited Companies and/or Mines of any company. 5. Respondent No. 1 viz. K.V.V.S.N. Associates had given its bid in terms of the NIT but was not considered eligible by the third respondent. Since Respondent No.1 was not eligible, the bids given by the others were opened and the tender awarded to the lowest bidder, the appellant - G.V. Pratap Reddy before us. 6. Respondent No. 1 challenged the award of tender given to the appellant and also the decision taken by Respondent No. 3 with regard to the ineligibility of Respondent No.1. On due consideration of the materials placed before it, the High Court came to the conclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntioned that in case of companies all the pages of all the documents should be signed by the authorized representatives of the Company and the company seal affixed thereon. The position is somewhat similar in paragraph 8.2 of the NIT as well. 12. On reading of the terms of the NIT it is clear that the word Company can only mean a company as understood under the Companies Act and cannot be read to include a firm. The word Company in the NIT is incapable of any other meaning. 13. The NIT makes it absolutely clear that only an individual or a company is eligible to participate in the tender. Since Respondent No. 1 is neither an individual nor a Company but a firm, Respondent No. 3 was fully entitled to reject the bid of the said resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
