NDLI: Caretel Infotech Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Scrutiny of tenders Permissibility blacklisting Tender contracts e-public tender
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Tender: Tender contracts – e-public tender floated by respondent no. 1 for setting up call centres – Declaration to be made in terms of clause 20(ii), if the bidder had been banned or black listed or delisted or holiday listed – Issuance of show cause notice to the appellant, one of the bidder, for blacklisting on allegation of furnishing false information and bid documents in respect of another tender – Notice was issued after floating of the tender by respondent no. 1 but before submission of the bid – Appellant declared L-1 and awarded letter of acceptance – Respondent No.3 declared L-2 - Writ petition by Respondent No.3 challenging declaration of appellant as L-1 – Subsequently, purchase order issued in favour of appellant – However, next day itself, order passed blacklisting and debarring the appellant from participating in any tender process for two years – Respondent No.3 having become aware of the factum of blacklisting of the appellant amended the petition to incorporate the said fact – Writ Petition allowed by the High Court – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Impugned order misread the blacklisting clause – Show cause notice itself did not amount to the process of blacklisting having already been initiated – Appellant would not be disentitled to contract – As regards, the effect of the blacklisting order, the ban would have prospective effect, for future business dealings – It would have no application to the tender awarded – As regards, the business continuity certificate doubted by respondent no. 3, the High Court in the course of inquiry expressed its doubts over the certificate – Such a course of action was not permissible – Directions of the High Court to take appropriate decisions, really amounts to directing respondent no.1 to breach its contract with the appellant – No such direction ought to have been issued to compel a breach of the contract by the appellant.Constitution of India: Art. 226 – Writ proceedings under – Scrutiny of tenders – Permissibility – Held: Normally parties would be governed by their contracts and the tender terms, and no writ would be maintainable u/Art. 226 – In view of Government and Public Sector Enterprises venturing into economic activities, the Court found it appropriate to build in certain checks and balances of fairness in procedure – This approach has given rise to scrutiny of tenders in writ proceedings – Every small or big tender sought to be challenged, affects the efficacy of commercial activities of the public sectors, in competition with the private sector – Unnecessary, close scrutiny of minute details, contrary to the view of the tendering authority, makes awarding of contracts by Government and Public Sectors a cumbersome exercise – Promptness and efficiency levels in private contracts, often tend to make tenders of public sector a non-competitive exercise. Deeds and documents: Tender – Interpretation of – Held: Author of the document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements – On, facts, view of respondent No.1- company which floated the tender, must prevail – Respondent No.1 itself, appreciative of the wording of clause 20 and the format, took a considered view – Respondent No.3, one of the bidder cannot compel its own interpretation of the contract to be thrust on respondent No.1, or ask the court to compel respondent No.1 to accept that interpretation – It is possible that the author of the tender may give an interpretation that is not acceptable to the court, but that itself would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation given
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 490
Petitioner	Caretel Infotech Ltd.
Respondent	Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.
SCR	[2019] 6 S.C.R. 950
Judgement Date	2019-04-09
Case Number	3588

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Caretel Infotech Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Tapas Kumar Das Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.

Reliance Energy Limited & Anr. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Sarvesh Berry

Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and Anr. Vs. Bvg India Limited and Ors.

Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa and Ors.

Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Vs. Star Agriwarehousing and Collateral Management Limited & Ors.

Umc Technologies Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India and Anr.

The Blue Dreamz Advertising Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs. M/s Anoj Kumar Agarwala & Ors.

Caretel Infotech Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.

Caretel Infotech Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Tapas Kumar Das Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.

Reliance Energy Limited & Anr. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Sarvesh Berry

Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and Anr. Vs. Bvg India Limited and Ors.

Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa and Ors.

Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Vs. Star Agriwarehousing and Collateral Management Limited & Ors.

Umc Technologies Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India and Anr.

The Blue Dreamz Advertising Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs. M/s Anoj Kumar Agarwala & Ors.

Caretel Infotech Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.