New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 388 - SUPREME COURT

2016 (6) TMI 388 - SUPREME COURT - TMI - Qualification of bidder for tender - High Court relied on Section 366 of the Companies Act which falls under Chapter XXI and some other statutes to conclude that the word 'Company' used in the NIT was somewhat vague. Thereafter, it was held that respondent no.1 was erroneously held ineligible and excluded from the tender process - Held that:- Section 366 of the Companies Act is completely inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The provis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 circumstances, we are of the opinion that the decision of the High Court deserves to be set aside and we do so a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

have heard learned counsel for the parties and we are of the opinion that the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside. 3. Respondent No. 3 viz. the State of Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation Limited issued a notice inviting tender that was due on 7th February, 2015. The work was excavation of sand from Submergence areas of Moithummeda Vagu of LMD Project and transport the same to the Stockyard near Sammakka Sarakka Dimme and again loading of the same into the lor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ines 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 Responde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d from the tender process. 7. We must immediately point out that Section 366 of the Companies Act is completely inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The provisions of Section 366 of the said Act are applicable only to that part of the Companies Act to which a reference has been made in that 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 Wage .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version