M/S SIEMENS AKTIENGESELISCHAFT & S. LTD. Vs. DMRC LTD.
LAWS(SC)-2014-2-26
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
February 14,2014
M/S Siemens Aktiengeselischaft And S. Ltd.
Appellant
VERSUS
Dmrc Ltd.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
JANG BAHADUR SINGH VS. BAIJ NATH TIWARI [REFERRED TO]RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY VS. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
TATA CELLULAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ASIA FOUNDATION AND COMPANYNSTRUCTION LIMITED VS. TRAFALGAR HOUSE CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
M P OIL EXTRACTION K N OIL INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MONARCH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER ULHASNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. K M SHANKERAPPA [REFERRED TO]
FEDERATION OF RAILWAY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
N D JAYAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AMRIK SINGH LYALLPURI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
HEINZ INDIA PVT LTD VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
D JONES SHIELD VS. N RAMESAM [REFERRED TO]
KING VS. PARMANAND [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH MANDAL VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS VS. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-9-4] [REFERRED TO]NAMIT GUPTA VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2014-3-46] [REFERRED TO]
SWAMI SAMARTH ENGINEERS LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-3-248] [REFERRED TO]
R.B. PRINTING HOUSE VS. THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS. [LAWS(MANIP)-2015-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
RESIDENT WELFARE ORGANISATION VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-8-360] [REFERRED TO]
KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST (R) VS. THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-110] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV MEMORIAL ACADEMIC WELFARE SOCIETY K.D. MEDICAL COLLEGE, HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-8-136] [REFERRED TO]
M S VENKATESH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-6-392] [REFERRED TO]
PHARMAVEDA (I) PVT. LTD VS. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER [LAWS(BOM)-2024-1-104] [REFERRED TO]
M/S KENGE CONSTRUCTION CO. VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2017-4-91] [REFERRED TO]
SRINIDHI PACKAGING INDUSTRIES VS. KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION [LAWS(KAR)-2019-8-296] [RERERRED TO]
KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROTHERS (COAL SALES) LIMITED VS. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2019-2-219] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE TRANSPORT ASSOCIATES VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2014-10-47] [REFERRED TO]
FALCON TRADING COMPANY VS. STATE OF M. P. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-6-43] [REFERRED TO]
LRY. LABOUR CONTRACTOR VS. CHANDIGARH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(P&H)-2017-5-274] [REFERRED TO]
M.S. VENKATESH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-6-191] [REFERRED TO]
SODHA PARMAR KANTIBHAI MANIBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-8-793] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. P. SANGEETHARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2023-9-118] [REFERRED TO]
KATRA MATA VAISHNO DEVI HOTELS, KATRA VS. UOI [LAWS(J&K)-2016-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
KATRA MATA VAISHNO DEVI HOTELS, KATRA VS. UOI [LAWS(J&K)-2016-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
S. GOPINATH AND OTHERS VS. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2018-6-615] [REFERRED TO]
S GOPINATH VS. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS R [LAWS(KER)-2018-5-50] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2019-5-174] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVIR COAL RESOURCES PVT LTD VS. M P POWER GENERATING CO LTD AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2019-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY YADAV VS. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2023-5-203] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV AND SONS VS. INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2023-3-239] [REFERRED TO]
FUTURA SUGARCANE PVT. LIMITED VS. STATE OF HARYANA (P&H)(DB) [LAWS(P&H)-2017-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
SHUBHAM PARMAR ELECTRICAL AND CIVIL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-2-120] [REFERRED TO]
M/S SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. VS. M/S.KAMARAJAR PORT LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2016-6-138] [REFERRED]
KALINGA WARRIORS SECURITY SERVICE VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2023-9-106] [REFERRED TO]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE LINK VS. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2018-2-37] [REFERRED TO]
SABRE GLBL INC VS. AIR INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2021-11-231] [REFERRED TO]
VEDPRAKSH POWER PRIVATE LIMITED VS. POWER COMPANY OF KARNATAKA LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2016-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
GOLDSTONE INFRATECH LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND 2 & ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2018-2-193] [REFERRED TO]
INDER SINGH CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-5-119] [REFERRED TO]
T. S. NARAYANA VS. CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(KAR)-2019-7-221] [REFERRED TO]
KANGABAM TARUNKUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2019-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
PRAGATI AGRIBIZ LLP VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR [LAWS(MPH)-2021-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
NARMADA ROAD LINES VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2021-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL GAMBHIR (ENGINEERS & GOVT CONTRACTOR) VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-392] [REFERRED TO]
PUNYA COAL ROAD LINES VS. M.P. POWER GENERATING CO. LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-2019-5-179] [REFERRED TO]
NIRLAC CHEMICALS VS. HAFFKINE BIO-PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU VS. DMRC LTD. [LAWS(J&K)-2016-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU VS. DMRC LTD. [LAWS(J&K)-2016-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
K. P. VINODKUMAR VS. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE ETC. [LAWS(KER)-2020-1-267] [REFERRED TO]
M/S ARUN KUMAR MISHRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. DISTRICT PAKUR [W.P.(C) NO. 4522 OF 2016] VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
B. N. ENTERPRISES VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2020-8-40] [REFERRED TO]
TEAM SUSTAIN VS. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF WIND ENERGY AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2015-12-377] [REFERRED]
NO 147, MANIPUR FISHERY COOP SOCIETY LTD VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS [LAWS(GAU)-2019-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [LAWS(MPH)-2016-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. VS. AMR DEV PRABHA [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH KHAND UDHYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-10-1060] [REFERRED TO]
SHELAT BROTHERS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
HARIOM CONSTRUCTION AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-10-37] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK THAKUR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
OXFORD MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-117] [REFERRED TO]
BOBBY DEKA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-6-64] [REFERRED TO]
SMEC INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. VS. ASSAM ELECTRICITY GRID CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2022-8-70] [REFERRED TO]
KAKOTI ENGINEERING WORKS AND ORS. VS. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-7-46] [REFERRED TO]
SULBHA ENTERPRISES VS. CHAIRMAN, U.P. JAL NIGAM [LAWS(ALL)-2022-6-47] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-8-99] [REFERRED TO]
OCEAN BLUE BOATING PVT LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-7-68] [REFERRED TO]
BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITE [LAWS(MPH)-2016-3-151] [REFERRED]
M/S. HOLOFLEX LTD. VS. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2016-9-42] [REFERRED TO]
RAHEE INFRATECH LIMITED VS. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2023-2-176] [REFERRED TO]
VERVE HUMAN CARE LABORATORIES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-9-83] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY YADAV VS. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2022-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD VS. EFICAA ENSMART SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2024-1-105] [REFERRED TO]
ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD. VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(HPH)-2014-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
MINIL LABORATORIES PVT LTD VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-7-99] [REFERRED TO]
ACER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2016-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
KRISNAA DIAGNOSTICS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD SULTAN KHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2021-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERDHAN MINES & MINERALS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
G . M . TRADING CORPORATION & ANR. VS. STATE OF J&K & ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2015-9-38] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL GOEL VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(J&K)-2016-2-27] [REFERRED]
KATRA MATA VAISHNO DEVI HOTELS VS. UOI AND ORS [LAWS(J&K)-2017-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
KATRA MATA VAISHNO DEVI HOTELS VS. UOI AND ORS [LAWS(J&K)-2017-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
CHICAGO CONSTRUCTIONS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2019-3-384] [REFERRED TO]
SUBASH CHANDRA MUND VS. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2016-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
SURYANARAYAN MOHANTY VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2019-1-59] [REFERRED TO]
NATASHA ZUTSI VS. COLLECTOR/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [LAWS(UTN)-2021-12-201] [REFERRED TO]
VITTHALBHAI MADHAVLAL PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-221] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. ZEEL CORPORATION VS. THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2018-5-117] [REFERRED TO]
HOLOFLEX LTD VS. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2016-9-78] [REFERRED]
R.K.JAIN & SONS HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2020-6-83] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. SGF INFRA PRIVATE LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2016-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU ELECTRICALS VS. TAMILNADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-10-205] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi has by a common order passed in Writ Petition (C) No.1853 of 2013 filed by the appellant and Writ Petition No.2615 of 2013 filed by Alstom Transport India Ltd. declined to interfere with the award of a contract for the supply of 486 Standard Gauge Cars Electrical Multiple Units meant for use in Phase-III of the Mass Rapid Transit System ('MRTS' for short) for Delhi and its extension corridors. The High Court has taken the view that the process of evaluation of the bids received from eligible bidders culminating in the award of a contract in favour of respondent No.2-Hyundai Rotem Company ('HR' for short) was transparent and did not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity of any kind to warrant interference by it. The High Court held that the bidders were well aware of and had accepted the tender conditions which were free from any vagueness or uncertainty. The parameters of evaluation conditions were also held to have been applied uniformly to all the bidders under a procedure that was open, transparent and fair as required by law. The present appeal assails the correctness of that judgment and order. Alstom Transport India Ltd. & Ors.-Writ-Petitioners in connected Writ Petition No.2615 of 2013 have, however, remained content with the view taken by the High Court and have not chosen to appeal.
(3.)Respondent-Delhi Metro Rail Corporation ('DMRC' for short) has planned to implement Phase-III of the MRTS for Delhi to keep pace with the ever increasing traffic demands in Delhi. Phase-III of the MRTS, Delhi comprises metro corridors of Mukundpur-Rajori Garden-Dhaula Kuan - Maujpur - Gokulpuri and Janakpuri (West) Munirka - Kalkaji - Kalindi Kunj - Botanical Garden - (Noida). The project, it is common ground, is financed with the help of a loan secured by the DMRC from Japan International Cooperation Agency ('JICA' for short). The loan agreement, inter alia, stipulates the bid procedure to be followed by DMRC. What is noteworthy is that the procedure, inter alia, provides for submission of tenders to JICA for review, concurrence and analysis of bids by the DMRC and reserves with the JICA the discretion to convey its views regarding the analysis of the bids and the proposal for award of the works.
(2.)A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi has by a common order passed in Writ Petition (C) No.1853 of 2013 filed by the appellant and Writ Petition No.2615 of 2013 filed by Alstom Transport India Ltd. declined to interfere with the award of a contract for the supply of 486 Standard Gauge Cars Electrical Multiple Units meant for use in Phase-III of the Mass Rapid Transit System ('MRTS' for short) for Delhi and its extension corridors. The High Court has taken the view that the process of evaluation of the bids received from eligible bidders culminating in the award of a contract in favour of respondent No.2-Hyundai Rotem Company ('HR' for short) was transparent and did not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity of any kind to warrant interference by it. The High Court held that the bidders were well aware of and had accepted the tender conditions which were free from any vagueness or uncertainty. The parameters of evaluation conditions were also held to have been applied uniformly to all the bidders under a procedure that was open, transparent and fair as required by law. The present appeal assails the correctness of that judgment and order. Alstom Transport India Ltd. & Ors.-Writ-Petitioners in connected Writ Petition No.2615 of 2013 have, however, remained content with the view taken by the High Court and have not chosen to appeal.
(3.)Respondent-Delhi Metro Rail Corporation ('DMRC' for short) has planned to implement Phase-III of the MRTS for Delhi to keep pace with the ever increasing traffic demands in Delhi. Phase-III of the MRTS, Delhi comprises metro corridors of Mukundpur-Rajori Garden-Dhaula Kuan - Maujpur - Gokulpuri and Janakpuri (West) Munirka - Kalkaji - Kalindi Kunj - Botanical Garden - (Noida). The project, it is common ground, is financed with the help of a loan secured by the DMRC from Japan International Cooperation Agency ('JICA' for short). The loan agreement, inter alia, stipulates the bid procedure to be followed by DMRC. What is noteworthy is that the procedure, inter alia, provides for submission of tenders to JICA for review, concurrence and analysis of bids by the DMRC and reserves with the JICA the discretion to convey its views regarding the analysis of the bids and the proposal for award of the works.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.