Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

G.V. Pratap Reddy Through G.P.A. TSR Resources Pvt Ltd. Versus K.V.V.S.N. Associates And Ors

2016 (6) TMI 388 - SUPREME COURT

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 provisions of Section 366 of the said Act are 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

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 accordingly. - Interlocutory Application N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es 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 lorries at Stockyard at Kothpalli Village, T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 mate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ediately 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 Wages Act etc. is wholly irrelevant. 8. We ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version