KANHAIYA LAL AGRAWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2002-7-65
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
July 29,2002
KANHAIYA LAL AGRAWAL
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
INDWELL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-10-202] [REFERRED TO]V LAXMIKANTH VS. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO FOOD [LAWS(KAR)-2018-7-486] [REFERRED TO]
TIWARI CONSTRUCTION VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(CHH)-2016-8-19] [REFERRED]
RAJIB LOCHAN DAS VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
HOOGHLY RIVER BRIDGE COMMISSIONER & ORS. VS. M/S. MEP INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2013-4-136] [REFERRED TO]
BIDOLIWALA CONSTRUCTION CO. VS. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, AMRAVATI DIVISION AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-12-89] [REFERRED TO]
KSS PETRON PVT LTD VS. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2014-5-122] [REFERRED TO]
T.P.CONSTRUCTIONS VS. THE CHIEF ENGINEER [LAWS(KER)-2017-6-157] [REFERRED TO]
UPENDRA JENA VS. STATE OF ODISHA & OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2019-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
HYDRO ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS VS. TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD [LAWS(MAD)-2021-2-55] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI ENTERPRISES, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, VED PRAKASH PANDEY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH SECRETARY [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-4-57] [REFERRED TO]
GAMMON INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2002-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
HEALTHWARE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. TAMIL NADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2020-10-393] [REFERRED TO]
TAPAN KUMAR SAHA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-5-61] [REFERRED TO]
ABHILASHA COMMERCIAL PVT LTD, NOIDA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
GHANARAM ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2008-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR RAGHUVANSHI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2012-7-184] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPENDRA KUMAR DASH VS. STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2016-8-113] [REFERRED TO]
P.P. BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-85] [REFERRED TO]
NIVITHA ENTERPRISES VS. APCPDCL [LAWS(APH)-2013-3-45] [REFERRED TO]
ZAGGLE PREPAID OCEAN SERVICES PVT. LTD VS. RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LTD [LAWS(APH)-2022-1-75] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR YADAV; SANTOSH KUMAR YADAV; MANOJ KUMAR MALVIYA VS. CHHATTISGARH STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED; STATE OF CHHATTISGARH; SHAMBHU PALIWAL; UMESH PALIWAL; SUMIT SINGH CHANDEL; GENERAL MANAGER, CHHATTISGARH STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED; KRISHNA RAJ SINGH [LAWS(CHH)-2016-7-80] [REFERRED]
A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LIMITED VS. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2010-7-173] [REFERRED TO]
HCIL-HCLL (JV) VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-41] [REFERRED TO]
Bothra Traders VS. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd [LAWS(MAD)-2005-2-146] [REFERRED TO]
GAJENDRA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2010-5-47] [REFERRED TO]
KINECO PVT LTD VS. WEST CENTRAL RAILWAYS [LAWS(MPH)-2010-7-65] [REFERRED TO]
BMM ISPAT LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2016-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
A.K. DAS ASSOCIATES LIMITED VS. ODISHA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(ORI)-2022-12-64] [REFERRED TO]
PANESAR AGRICULTURE INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2020-12-19] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRENDRA CHANDRA BHATTA-CHARJEE VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2011-11-28] [REFERRED TO]
MEGA ELECTRICALS DIHANG EDUT-ECH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2012-5-54] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. TANDRA DAS VS. SRI RAJIB LOCHAN DAS AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-6-249] [REFERRED TO]
RENAISSANCE DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-8-99] [REFERRED TIO]
P P BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED (CONSORTIUM) VS. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-593] [REFERRED TO]
TATA MOTORS LIMITED VS. BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING [LAWS(SC)-2023-5-99] [REFERRED TO]
AIA ENGINEERING LIMITED VS. TAMILNADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-120] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMUNDI MOTORS VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-8-262] [REFERRED TO]
RITHWIK PROJECTS LTD. VS. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(ORI)-2009-12-59] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION OF REGISTRATION PLATES MANUFACTURERS OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2002-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
TIRUPATI CEMENT PRODUCTS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-4-74] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMSINGH DEVISINGH THAKUR VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(BOM)-2020-3-121] [REFERRED TO]
RHETORIC TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD THRU. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-1-126] [REFERRED TO]
SEDI ALLIED AGENCY VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2014-3-95] [REFERRED TO]
RASHMI METALIKS LTD VS. KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(SC)-2013-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-8-219] [REFERRED TO]
SRI. KAJAL CHANDRA DAS VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA, THE COLLECTOR EXCISE AND SRI. SUJIT CHAKRABORTY [LAWS(TRIP)-2014-4-25] [REFERRED TO]
SELIM MIAH VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS. [LAWS(TRIP)-2015-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
MUNDHE CONTRACTORS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-1-66] [REFERRED TO]
MEP INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2012-10-106] [REFERRED TO]
ROSMERTA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-176] [REFERRED TO]
MHS INFRA TECH. PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-179] [REFERRED TO]
CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION CO P LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2012-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA RAI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2014-3-68] [REFERRED TO]
JALGAON GOLDEN TRANSPORT PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-7-152] [REFERRED TO]
ANCHOR STRUCTURALS VS. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED [LAWS(KER)-2017-11-216] [REFERRED TO]
T.A. XAVIER & SONS VS. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-3-33] [REFERRED TO]
T.P.CONSTRUCTIONS VS. CHIEF ENGINEER,KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD [LAWS(KER)-2018-2-49] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTI ENGINEERING. VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
HARSHA CONSTRUCTIONS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2008-8-75] [REFERRED TO]
SHREYANS INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CHHATTISGARH TEXTBOOK CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2015-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
TANDRA DAS VS. RAJIB LOCHAN DAS & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-6-61] [REFERRED TO]
HOOGHLY RIVER BRIDGE COMMISSIONER VS. MEP INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2013-4-79] [REFERRED TO]
LEIGHTON WELSPUN CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. VS. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2013-3-268] [REFERRED TO]
LEIGHTON WELSPUN CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. VS. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2013-3-268] [REFERRED TO]
ELEKTA MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-11-259] [REFERRED TO]
BIHARIJI AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-2-174] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI ENTERPRISES VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
TAHAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-3-94] [REFERRED TO]
GANGA BALA CHOUDHURY VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2004-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LIMITED VS. RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2012-12-80] [REFERRED TO]
MR HARSHA VARDHAN REDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-8-116] [REFERRED TO]
GLODYNE TECHNOSERVE LTD VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2010-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
NEW RATAN PRIYA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-2-111] [REFERRED TO]
GANAPATHY TRANSPORTS VS. SENIOR MANAGER CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD [A GROUP COMPANY OF INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD ] [LAWS(MAD)-2011-8-279] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Rajendra Babu, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The first respondent invited tenders for execution of five items of work including supply, delivery and stacking of 75,000 cubic metre machine crushed track ballast as per specifications at its depot in Naurozabad and loading it into Railway wagons. The supply period was for 24 months. The conditions in the tender notice required that the rates at which supply was to be made had to be stated in words as well as in figures against each item of work as per Schedule attached thereto; that the tenders submitted with any omissions or alteration of the tender document were liable to be rejected; however, permissible corrections could be attached with due signature of tenderers; that the tenderer should hold the offer open till such date as may be specified in the tender which was for a minimum period of 90 days from the date of opening of the tender; that contravention of the conditions would automatically result in forfeiture of security deposit; that the tender was liable to be rejected for non-compliance of any of the conditions of the tender form.
(3.)Five tenders were received. The appellant made his tender on 27-2-2001 with a covering letter that if his offer is accepted within the stipulated time rebate would be offered by him to the effect that in case the contract was given to him within 45 days, 60 days and 75 days, he would extend rebate of 5%, 3% and 2% respectively on the rates tendered by him. Respondent No. 5 had made a similar offer but after five days of the opening of the tender, while the appellant had made such offer of rebate even at the time of making the tender in the letter accompanying the tender documents. However, respondent No. 5 offered to reduce rates by 1.25% if accepted in 30 days and 1% if accepted in 45 days. The 1st respondent accepted the tender offered by the appellant on the rates subject to rebate. Agreement was entered into by him on 19-4-2001. Respondent No. 5 filed a writ petition claiming that his tender should have been accepted, as the rates offered by him are the lowest.
(2.)The first respondent invited tenders for execution of five items of work including supply, delivery and stacking of 75,000 cubic metre machine crushed track ballast as per specifications at its depot in Naurozabad and loading it into Railway wagons. The supply period was for 24 months. The conditions in the tender notice required that the rates at which supply was to be made had to be stated in words as well as in figures against each item of work as per Schedule attached thereto; that the tenders submitted with any omissions or alteration of the tender document were liable to be rejected; however, permissible corrections could be attached with due signature of tenderers; that the tenderer should hold the offer open till such date as may be specified in the tender which was for a minimum period of 90 days from the date of opening of the tender; that contravention of the conditions would automatically result in forfeiture of security deposit; that the tender was liable to be rejected for non-compliance of any of the conditions of the tender form.
(3.)Five tenders were received. The appellant made his tender on 27-2-2001 with a covering letter that if his offer is accepted within the stipulated time rebate would be offered by him to the effect that in case the contract was given to him within 45 days, 60 days and 75 days, he would extend rebate of 5%, 3% and 2% respectively on the rates tendered by him. Respondent No. 5 had made a similar offer but after five days of the opening of the tender, while the appellant had made such offer of rebate even at the time of making the tender in the letter accompanying the tender documents. However, respondent No. 5 offered to reduce rates by 1.25% if accepted in 30 days and 1% if accepted in 45 days. The 1st respondent accepted the tender offered by the appellant on the rates subject to rebate. Agreement was entered into by him on 19-4-2001. Respondent No. 5 filed a writ petition claiming that his tender should have been accepted, as the rates offered by him are the lowest.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.