w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Moets Catering Services Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Sandeep Bindra v/s Dr. Ambedkar International Center & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- K N INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201UP2002PLC026841

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND S INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC049964

Company & Directors' Information:- S S A INTERNATIONAL LTD [Active] CIN = U15122DL1995PLC068186

Company & Directors' Information:- A T N INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L65993WB1983PLC080793

Company & Directors' Information:- D D INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB1995PTC016929

Company & Directors' Information:- T K INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55101OR1982PLC001092

Company & Directors' Information:- N R INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74999WB1991PLC051738

Company & Directors' Information:- K J INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L15142PB1993PLC011274

Company & Directors' Information:- A K S INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1996PLC076327

Company & Directors' Information:- I SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2003PTC118851

Company & Directors' Information:- S P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100WB1994PTC063228

Company & Directors' Information:- B. K. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2006PTC157013

Company & Directors' Information:- R S C INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L17124RJ1993PLC007136

Company & Directors' Information:- J C INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1999PLC089037

Company & Directors' Information:- M T L INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U24219UP2001PTC025965

Company & Directors' Information:- T C N S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U51311DL1996PTC080096

Company & Directors' Information:- K V S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2003PTC120770

Company & Directors' Information:- G N INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2001PTC110766

Company & Directors' Information:- S T SERVICES LTD [Active] CIN = L74140WB1989PLC047210

Company & Directors' Information:- S H A M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1994PTC079867

Company & Directors' Information:- M K INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1996PLC083430

Company & Directors' Information:- V. G. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101DL2007PTC162540

Company & Directors' Information:- M G F SERVICES LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65910DL1987PLC029599

Company & Directors' Information:- D R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24132DL1996PTC079867

Company & Directors' Information:- R H INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2007PLC159452

Company & Directors' Information:- G & G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120DL2012PTC234047

Company & Directors' Information:- A & D INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36109RJ2007PTC024176

Company & Directors' Information:- R S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65100DL1989PTC038061

Company & Directors' Information:- R S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL1989PTC038061

Company & Directors' Information:- S J SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL1988PTC034427

Company & Directors' Information:- K A I INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U13100OR2007PTC009647

Company & Directors' Information:- C G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1996PTC097577

Company & Directors' Information:- SANDEEP (INDIA) LTD [Active] CIN = L51491WB1982PLC035464

Company & Directors' Information:- K C INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PLC060402

Company & Directors' Information:- M P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29130MH1997PTC107943

Company & Directors' Information:- A S INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1993PLC056158

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP E - SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MN2013PTC008361

Company & Directors' Information:- S. D. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900UP2008PTC036047

Company & Directors' Information:- E M SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93090MH2001PTC131924

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND I INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1995PTC072210

Company & Directors' Information:- L T INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1999PLC097892

Company & Directors' Information:- A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102GJ2008PTC053840

Company & Directors' Information:- L M J SERVICES LTD [Active] CIN = L51226WB1983PLC035807

Company & Directors' Information:- L M J SERVICES LTD [Active] CIN = L93000WB1983PLC035807

Company & Directors' Information:- G K SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1994PTC078529

Company & Directors' Information:- S J M INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52110DL1987PLC028571

Company & Directors' Information:- S B S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL1997PTC085878

Company & Directors' Information:- R. A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51225DL2008PTC177405

Company & Directors' Information:- B G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50300PB2014PTC038889

Company & Directors' Information:- S F INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PB2000PTC023654

Company & Directors' Information:- I K INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066267

Company & Directors' Information:- C K INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC045625

Company & Directors' Information:- L A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB2010PTC033683

Company & Directors' Information:- H R V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U74899UP1993PTC057665

Company & Directors' Information:- A K SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899MH1986PTC268851

Company & Directors' Information:- K P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24110GJ2007PTC050026

Company & Directors' Information:- V S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100MH1997PTC109647

Company & Directors' Information:- N N INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01111DL1999PTC099094

Company & Directors' Information:- S R V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2012PTC243060

Company & Directors' Information:- R N M CATERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15316KA2015PTC081391

Company & Directors' Information:- B V SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1991PTC050946

Company & Directors' Information:- A. R. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH2010PTC228539

Company & Directors' Information:- I S A SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140JH1995PTC006387

Company & Directors' Information:- B R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC055562

Company & Directors' Information:- M J INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U74899DL1982PTC013231

Company & Directors' Information:- D N INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36911TN1996PLC034205

Company & Directors' Information:- M. H. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102DL2007PTC164267

Company & Directors' Information:- M G M INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1982PTC013580

Company & Directors' Information:- J J INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109DL1992PTC047657

Company & Directors' Information:- MR INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2009PTC136892

Company & Directors' Information:- E I C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1985PTC022426

Company & Directors' Information:- H D INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PLC060720

Company & Directors' Information:- K. A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101UP2012PTC049338

Company & Directors' Information:- J & G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109DL2012PTC238392

Company & Directors' Information:- K R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291DL2008PTC172188

Company & Directors' Information:- S P INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999UP1965PTC003091

Company & Directors' Information:- MR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15122TG2011PTC076407

Company & Directors' Information:- A C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC070774

Company & Directors' Information:- B M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC048736

Company & Directors' Information:- S G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1998PTC086547

Company & Directors' Information:- B N INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15412WB1999PTC089316

Company & Directors' Information:- V A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01111DL2000PTC104712

Company & Directors' Information:- S. J. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310DL2007PTC169438

Company & Directors' Information:- G. S. C. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29120MH1994PTC080380

Company & Directors' Information:- A J INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC060818

Company & Directors' Information:- J S M INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110KA1996PLC020046

Company & Directors' Information:- N M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120MH2012PTC234492

Company & Directors' Information:- S S M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1997PTC089876

Company & Directors' Information:- A P J INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909HR2010PTC040304

Company & Directors' Information:- T. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL1997PTC091049

Company & Directors' Information:- V R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101UP2011PTC043952

Company & Directors' Information:- M E C INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U33111GJ1963PTC082423

Company & Directors' Information:- H S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900KA2014PTC074321

Company & Directors' Information:- J K INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01100MH2004PTC144492

Company & Directors' Information:- D. S. R. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2010PTC039954

Company & Directors' Information:- R B INTERNATIONAL LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101WB1993PLC059515

Company & Directors' Information:- SERVICES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1996PLC075146

Company & Directors' Information:- P Y INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U51102RJ1995PTC010133

Company & Directors' Information:- R C INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909TG1991PLC012477

Company & Directors' Information:- I AND A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG1995PTC019936

Company & Directors' Information:- G V INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2010PTC212026

Company & Directors' Information:- P V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1998PTC094598

Company & Directors' Information:- I B INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U72200DL2000PTC105735

Company & Directors' Information:- A M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066228

Company & Directors' Information:- Z. H. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U21098MH2010PTC210735

Company & Directors' Information:- J R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909TN2002PTC048744

Company & Directors' Information:- L S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2009PTC193390

Company & Directors' Information:- M B INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52190DL2001PTC110572

Company & Directors' Information:- O K R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL1996PTC077152

Company & Directors' Information:- INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC075007

Company & Directors' Information:- B B C INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U25209WB1984PTC037383

Company & Directors' Information:- K S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909MH2001PTC134345

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51101TN1992PTC022507

Company & Directors' Information:- O P T SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63013DL1996PTC083397

Company & Directors' Information:- C & A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1982PTC026718

Company & Directors' Information:- P P SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1991PTC051423

Company & Directors' Information:- A P T SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U29219TG1999PTC031903

Company & Directors' Information:- S S SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109AS1993PTC003956

Company & Directors' Information:- G & G SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2012PTC230905

Company & Directors' Information:- J S INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1982PTC027604

Company & Directors' Information:- A C INDIA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC034784

Company & Directors' Information:- A N Y SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC071457

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA INTERNATIONAL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51228MH1955PTC009483

Company & Directors' Information:- N B SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC056484

Company & Directors' Information:- P C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00894KA1985PTC006606

Company & Directors' Information:- M. V. S SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000DL2013PTC252172

Company & Directors' Information:- S D SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109AS1998PTC005293

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND B SERVICES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900MH2004PTC145775

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U63040PB1982PTC004926

Company & Directors' Information:- C & R SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140KA1996PTC019645

Company & Directors' Information:- L & P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52100DL2016PTC292025

Company & Directors' Information:- E AND A SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51900MH1989PTC054373

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND M CATERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55204MH2005PTC156252

Company & Directors' Information:- A. H. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74990MH2009PTC193917

Company & Directors' Information:- P F P SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900MH2009PTC293633

Company & Directors' Information:- P F P SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2009PTC139742

Company & Directors' Information:- R B N INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52300DL2012PTC243998

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED. [Strike Off] CIN = U24100OR1993PTC003244

Company & Directors' Information:- E C INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1982PTC013146

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA SERVICES LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1946PLC000976

Company & Directors' Information:- U M S SERVICES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U03210TZ1982PLC001208

Company & Directors' Information:- SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL1996PTC078465

Company & Directors' Information:- G I SERVICES INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2008PLC184088

Company & Directors' Information:- E AND E SERVICES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65992KL1988PLC005094

Company & Directors' Information:- B H SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2012FTC227035

Company & Directors' Information:- A R SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00000DL2001PTC109578

Company & Directors' Information:- INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51311WB1955PTC022281

Company & Directors' Information:- M M INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Converted to LLP] CIN = U51312DL1977PTC008583

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND J SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1995PTC092554

Company & Directors' Information:- A K INDIA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1981PTC012389

Company & Directors' Information:- M P SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999PN1999PTC013531

Company & Directors' Information:- M C SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999PN1999PTC013532

Company & Directors' Information:- M.R. AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300DL1985PTC020952

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. CATERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101RJ1976PTC001680

Company & Directors' Information:- S C L SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63012TN2001PTC046650

Company & Directors' Information:- A B SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL1998PTC093545

Company & Directors' Information:- G P SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC037683

Company & Directors' Information:- T S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85320WB2003PTC095712

Company & Directors' Information:- S S SERVICES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1988PTC044009

Company & Directors' Information:- O P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U55101PB2013PTC037499

Company & Directors' Information:- J & A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900PB2013PTC037302

Company & Directors' Information:- Y. A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900RJ2012PTC040431

Company & Directors' Information:- S S D SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74910RJ1996PTC012694

Company & Directors' Information:- V & V SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74990MH2010PTC206211

Company & Directors' Information:- D S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65923MH2012PTC226482

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND I SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090MH1981PTC024997

Company & Directors' Information:- F F C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2014PTC153348

Company & Directors' Information:- D & A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2015PTC262713

Company & Directors' Information:- R. B. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2017PTC302692

Company & Directors' Information:- R L INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18204UP2016PTC076344

Company & Directors' Information:- V P S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93030UP2014PTC066242

Company & Directors' Information:- SANDEEP SERVICES PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U51909WB1993PTC060599

Company & Directors' Information:- S N SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900JK2014PTC004110

Company & Directors' Information:- V C CATERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U55204DL2010PTC201205

Company & Directors' Information:- V. S. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2012PTC233958

Company & Directors' Information:- S & V SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2015PTC287145

Company & Directors' Information:- M K R SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000DL2012PTC242159

Company & Directors' Information:- M.R. CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15400DL2013PTC259339

Company & Directors' Information:- J V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51102DL2012PTC240197

Company & Directors' Information:- S R L INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U20296AP2013PTC085533

Company & Directors' Information:- R K SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200HR2007PTC041783

Company & Directors' Information:- V J SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29242GJ2013PTC074510

Company & Directors' Information:- N I SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64202KL2000PTC014355

Company & Directors' Information:- F I SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2001PTC113001

Company & Directors' Information:- B I M SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140KA1974PTC002694

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND M SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140MH1977PTC019880

Company & Directors' Information:- M D INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH1981PTC025007

Company & Directors' Information:- D C M INTERNATIONAL LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL2000PTC004208

    W.P.(C) No. 5517 of 2019

    Decided On, 12 December 2019

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

    For the Petitioner: Rohit P. Ranjan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, Sarvan Kumar Shukla, CGSCs, Chetan Kumar Shukla, G.P., Gokul Kumar Sharma, R2, Dhruv Dwivedi, R3, P.S. Bindra, G.S. Patwalia, Vinayak Marwah, R4, B.K. Shahi, Siddharth, Vijay Kumar, Advocates.



Judgment Text


G.S. Sistani, J.

1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of appropriate writ or direction quashing rejection order dated 15.4.2019 issued by respondent No.1.

2. Pleadings in the matter are complete. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken-up for final hearing and disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The necessary facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner is stated to be engaged inter-alia in providing catering services since the year 1991 and being empanelled for rendering outdoor catering services in some of the most prestigious clubs and institutions in Delhi.

4. Respondent No.1 invited a tender on 8.10.2018 seeking bids for empanelling of service providers for outdoor catering services at respondent No.1 centre. The petitioner submitted its bid alongwith relevant documents and a demand draft of Rs. 50,000/- as per the requirements of the tender conditions. As per tender condition No. 8, the bids were to be submitted in two parts – (a) sealed technical bid and (b) sealed financial bid. Both the technical and financial bids were to be sealed; and the sealed envelopes, bearing the name and complete postal address of the bidder, were further required to be placed in a bigger envelope superscribed “BID FOR EMPANELMENT AS OUTDOOR CATERING SERVICE PROVIDER AT DAIC, NEW DELHI”, which bigger envelope was itself required to be sealed. The envelope containing both bids was to be submitted by hand to respondent No.1 on or before 11 AM on 19.11.2018.

5. As per the averments in the writ petition, when the bigger envelope submitted by the petitioner was opened in the presence of all bidders at the bid-opening meeting on 20.11.2018, it was noticed that the smaller envelope containing the financial bid submitted by the petitioner was in fact not found sealed. Objections were raised by other bidders and resultantly respondent No.1 rejected the bid of petitioner on this ground alone.

6. As per averments made in the petition, the petitioner was orally informed about the rejection of his bid, however he did not receive any written communication and did not have information as to why his bid had been rejected.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner claims to have addressed a communication to respondent No.1 on 12.2.2019 wherein he confirmed that as sole Proprietor of the petitioner concern, Sandeep Bindra had personally attended the bid opening meeting. Reliance is placed on the following paragraphs of communication dated 12.2.2019, which we reproduce below:

* “Referring to above mentioned tender, it is submitted that sealed tender document were delivered in your office before the last submission date.

* I, (Sandeep Bindra - Proprietor) personally attended the opening Bid Meet for the same.

* As understood & enquired from your office, it seems that our empanelment is not being considered and nor even being intimated to us till date.

* During the meet, as enquired by the concerned at your office, it was clearly shown that the main envelope was sealed with quick fix and tapped as well and other two envelopes for the technical & financial bid were sealed with quick fix/gum.

* Received telephonic message in the month of January to send our Mobile Kitchen Van for inspection & next day they called not to bring it.

It is requested that reason for disqualifying Moets Catering Service, if correct, may kindly be intimated to us at the earliest.

Once again we would like to inform that the main envelope was sealed and tapped with scotch tape and rest were very much SEALED as desired in the tender document and nowhere it was written that tender had to be sealed by tape. We request you to look into the matter and do the needful at your end please.”

8. The case of the petitioner is that although all three envelopes submitted by the petitioner were sealed, the main envelope was sealed with Quickfix and was also taped; however the other envelopes were only sealed with glue. During the course of the hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the financial bid envelope may have opened-up possibly because the glue may have come un-stuck. He further submits that there is no dispute that the financial bid and the technical bid were both submitted in a bigger envelope, which was duly sealed and taped; and thus, there was substantial compliance with tender condition No. (A)(8)(i) & (ii) and complete compliance with tender condition No.(A)(9). He submits that respondents are wrongly placing reliance on tender condition No. (A)(18) as also tender condition No. (C)(8), which we reproduce below :

“(A) (18) Disqualification of bids: The bid is liable to be disqualified if (1) Not submitted in accordance with the prescribed forms. (2) During the validity period, or its extended period, if any, the Bidder increases his quoted prices. (3) The Bidder qualifies the bid with his own conditions (4) Bid received after due date and time. (5) Bid not accompanied by all requisite forms and supporting documents. (6) Information submitted in Technical bid is found to be misrepresented, incorrect or false accidentally, unwittingly or otherwise, at any time during the processing of the contract (no matter at what stage) or during the tenure of the contract including the extension period, if any (7) Awardees of the contract qualify the letter of acceptance of the contract with his conditions. (8) Bidders may specifically note that while processing the tender documents, if it comes to our knowledge expressly or implied, that some Bidders may have colluded in any manner whatsoever or otherwise joined to form a cartel resulting in delay/ holding up the processing of tender, then the Bidders so involved are liable to be disqualified for this contract as well as for a further period of two years. (9) No Bidder will be allowed to withdraw after submission of the bids otherwise the EMD submitted by the bidder would stand forfeited. (10) In case of successful bidder declines the offer of contract, for whatsoever reason(s) the EMD submitted by the successful bidder would stand forfeited.”

“C. PRE-BID MEETING AND OPENING OF BIDS

8. If any of the conditions of Tendering are not fulfilled, such Tender/Tenders will be summarily rejected outright and objections raised in this regards will neither be entertained. DAIC reserves the right to choose, accept or reject any or all requests/offer, in full or part at any stage, reduce or increase the quantity/rate of items without assigning any reasons therefore.”

9. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that inspite of substantial compliance with the tender conditions, respondent No.1 has acted in an arbitrary manner at the behest and instance of other bidders present at the bid-opening meeting. The arbitrary action of respondent No.1 is evident from the rejection letter addressed to the petitioner which was received only in the month of April 2019, after contempt proceedings were initiated by the petitioner against respondent No.1 for non-compliance with order dated 11.03.2019 passed in W.P. (C) 2411/2019, whereby the Court had directed respondent No.1 to inform the petitioner in writing of the reasons for rejection of its bid.

10. Learned Counsel for petitioner further submits, that even assuming, without admitting, that the envelope containing the financial bid remained unsealed, it would not constitute breach of any ‘essential condition’ of the tender document, which could deprive the petitioner of a fair opportunity of being considered for the contract. Insofar as Rule 163 of the General Financial Rules, 2017 relied upon by the respondents, the petitioner submits that firstly, as per a plain reading of the terms of the Rule, this Rule applies only to tenders for purchase of high value plant, machinery etc. of a complex and technical nature and not to a tender for services as in the present case. Secondly, the petitioner argues that while Rule 163 stipulates the separate sealing of the technical bid as well as the financial bid, with both bids then being put in a bigger cover which is also to be sealed, the Rule then also contemplates separate opening of the technical bid and the financial bid. It is pointed-out that in the present case, the two bids were in any case not opened separately but on the same date, at the same time, at the same venue and in the presence of all the bidders. Accordingly, it is submitted that Rule 163 was not applied to the bidding process even by the respondents.

11. Counsel for petitioner has also relied upon a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of ABC Beverages Private Limited v. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) Ltd. and Others, W.P. (C) 2785/2017 decided on 28.7.2017, more particularly paras 2, 12 and 16, which we reproduce below:

“2. IRCTC had originally floated the NIT on 6.10.2016, and thereafter revised it on 21.12.2016. The Petitioner submitted its technical and financial bids on 9.1.2017 in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the revised NIT. In accordance with Clause 3.4 of therevised NIT, the technical bids contained in Envelope No. 1 were opened on 11.1.2017 by IRCTC. No deficiency in the bids was pointed out to the petitioner at that time. On the contrary, minor deficiencies in the bids of some other bidders, for instance, non-submission of certain documents in the bid of Ion Exchange (India) Limited, were pointed out by IRCTC. Thereafter, on 7.3.2017, it came to the petitioner’s knowledge, from IRCTC that its technical bid was rejected on the ground that a notarial stamp was not affixed on certain Tender documents i.e. APPENDIX-II, III & IV, (though those documents were duly attested and notarized), as was required by sub-clauses (b) to (d) of Clause 2.12.1 (i) of the revised NIT.

12. In the present case, it is evidently a situation where the technical bid of the Petitioner was rejected by the IRCTC on technical grounds; the rejection was meted out in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, since Surya, the second respondent was made aware of similar discrepancies for their correction, after the submission of bids. The distinction sought to be made between the filings in the petitioner’s documents and those of Surya, in the opinion of the Court, is artificial. In the petitioner’s case, at least, the public notary had attested the relevant documents in the Annexures-II, III and IV. Only the notary’s stamp was missing. That per se did not undermine the effectiveness of the documents. Possibly, in a Court of law, the inadequacy of stamp would have resulted in impounding of the instrument leading to payment of penalty and the requisite stamp amount. However, that view would have arisen, only in the event of a dispute pertaining to the contents or dispute impinging upon something where the documents occupied a center stage. In other words, the documents were not in issue; a notary public attested them. Likewise, in the case of Surya, the second respondent, the requisite documents were not on the record. However, the tender committee observed that such documents were merely ancillary given that the registration number of the company was disclosed.

16. For the above reasons, the Court is of the opinion that the rejection of the petitioner’s bid in the circumstances was unjustified. The award of the tender pursuant to the NIT in question to the second respondent is hereby quashed. However this would not result in the undoing of the entire tender process itself. The jurisprudence, which has evolved over the last two decades, in respect of commercial contracts, is that there ought to be minimal interference with the State or agency’s decisions. In case of illegality, procedural irregularity mala fides or manifest arbitrariness, the Courts’ exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is warranted (Tata Cellular v. Union of India, 1994 (SLT SOFT) 425=1994 (6) SCC 651; Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corpn., VI (2001) SLT 704=IV (2001) CLT 91 (SC)=(2001) 8 SCC 491; Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka & Ors., IV (2012) BC 177 (SC)=VI (2012) SLT 116=(2012) 8 SCC 216; Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr., VI (2016) SLT 586=IV (2016) BC 485 (SC)=2016 (16) SCC 818; JSW Infrastructure v. Kakinada Seaports, IV (2017) SLT 579=2017(4) SCC 740 etc.) In the present case, the interpretation which ousted the petitioner’s tender bid was both arbitrary and discriminatory. Yet, the rule of minimal interference has to be followed. Rather than setting aside the entire tender process, the appropriate course would be to correct the decision-making and direct the first respondent to open the financial bid of the petitioner. In case the procedure results in a fresh evaluation vis--vis the successful bidder, i.e., the second respondent, i.e., Surya, IRCON shall proceed to evaluate the two bids (i.e., the petitioners’ and that of Surya) afresh and finally decide whom to award the contract, in accordance with the NIT and the law. This process shall be completed within 3 weeks.”

12. Counsel for petitioner prays that in the circumstances, no essential term or condition of the tender has been breached and, even assuming the technical bid was submitted un-sealed, that was only non-compliance with an ancillary condition. Therefore, it is urged that the financial bid of the petitioner be opened and the petitioner be considered for empanelment, pointing-out that in case such a relief is granted to the petitioner, it would have no adverse effect on the respondents nor would the tender process be unsettled.

13. Mr. Shukla, Counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand submits that there is no infirmity or illegality in the decision rendered by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has scrupulously applied the tender conditions. He submits that the tender condition makes it crystal clear that the three envelopes were to be individually sealed; which condition has admittedly been violated.

14. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by Gujarat High Court in the case of Payal S. Padhiar v. General Manager, Telecom, Palanpur and Another, Special Civil Application No. 936/2000 decided on 21.2.2000 in which case, while dealing with a challenge to whether a tender submitted was to be treated as 'sealed' by 'applying gum and staple pins', a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court, referring to the definition of the word ‘seal’ as appearing in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, has held that the word ‘seal’ particularly in context of invitation of sealed tender cannot be loosely understood. 'Seal' would mean a piece of wax, lead, paper etc. with a stamp design, attached to a document as a guarantee of authenticity and also a similar material attached to a receptacle, envelope, etc., affording security, by having to be broken to allow access to the contents. It has accordingly been held that a sealed tender would obviously therefore mean that the tender is placed in an envelope or package or other receptacle, which is attached with a piece of wax etc., affording security, so that it cannot be easily opened without tampering with the material so attached. It has been further observed that an envelope which is closed by applying gum, can always be ‘steam-opened’ and cannot be said to be ‘sealed’ in the context of the expression "sealed tender" used while inviting offers. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court has held that there was no substance in the contention raised by the petitioner in that case that the Tender Committee had acted arbitrarily in refusing to open the tender on the ground that it was not duly sealed.

15. With due deference to the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the afore-cited matter, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the view, for the reasons as detailed later in this judgment.

16. Counsel for respondent No.2 also submits that prejudice would be caused to the rights of the successful tenderers, who, after having been declared successful, have created infrastructure and have made large investments to service their obligations under contract. If the petitioner is empaneled at this stage, that infrastructure would go waste as there would be further fragmentation of business/orders that are likely to be placed for catering services at respondent No.1 center.

17. Counsel for respondent No.3 has relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of The Delhi Motor Truck Owners Union v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation and Others, in W.P. (C) 10849/2019 decided on 22.10.2019 in support of his submission that the scope of judicial review in tender matters is narrow. Reliance is placed on paras 9, 10 and 11, which read as under:

“9. It has repeatedly been held by the Apex Court that while exercising powers of judicial review, the Court should be slow to interfere with a decision, unless the decision is arbitrary or irrational.

“10. In the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Another, VI (2016) SLT 586=IV (2016) BC 485 (SC)=(2016) 16 SCC 818, the Supreme Court in paras 11, 15, and 16 has held as under:

11. Recently, in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLLSML (Joint Venture Consortium), VII (2016) SLT 647=(2016) 8 SCC 622 : (2016) 4 SCC (Civ) 106 : (2016) 8 Scale 99] it was held by this Court, relying on a host of decisions that the decision-making process of the employer or owner of the project in accepting or rejecting the bid of a tenderer should not be interfered with. Interference is permissible only if the decision-making process is mala fide or is intended to favour someone. Similarly, the decision should not be interfered with unless the decision is so arbitrary or irrational that the Court could say that the decision is one which no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have reached. In other words, the decision-making process or the decision should be perverse and not merely faulty or incorrect or erroneous. No such extreme case was made out by GYT-TPL JV in the High Court or before us.

xxx xxx xxx

15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.

16. In the present appeals, although there does not appear to be any ambiguity or doubt about the interpretation given by NMRCL to the tender conditions, we are of the view that even if there was such an ambiguity or doubt, the High Court ought to have refrained from giving its own interpretation unless it had come to a clear conclusion that the interpretation given by NMRCL was perverse or mala fide or intended to favour one of the bidders. This was certainly not the case either before the High Court or before this Court.

“11. It would also be useful to refer to the decision in Central Coalfields Limited and Another v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 622, referred to in Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra), paragraph 43 of which is reproduced hereunder:

43. Continuing in the vein of accepting the inherent authority of an employer to deviate from the terms and conditions of an NIT, and reintroducing the privilege-of-participation principle and the level playing field concept, this Court laid emphasis on the decision-making process, particularly in respect of a commercial contract. One of the more significant cases on the subject is the three-Judge decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651] which gave importance to the lawfulness of a decision and not its soundness. If an administrative decision, such as a deviation in the terms of NIT is not arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, mala fide or biased, the Courts will not judicially review the decision taken. Similarly, the Courts will not countenance interference with the decision at the behest of an unsuccessful bidder in respect of a technical or procedural violation. This was quite clearly stated by this Court (following Tata Cellular [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651] ) in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517] in the following words: (SCC p. 531, para 22)

22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made “lawfully” and not to check whether choice or decision is “sound”. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, Courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil Court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade Courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold.”

This Court then laid down the questions that ought to be asked in such a situation. It was said: (Jagdish Mandal case [Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517] , SCC p. 531, para 22)

22. … Therefore, a Court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:

(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone;

OR

Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the Court can say: “the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached”;

(ii) Whether public interest is affected.

If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226.”

18. Counsel for respondent No.3 has also placed reliance on Silppi Construction Contractors v. Union of India and Others, IV (2019) BC 561 (SC)=IX (2019) SLT 391=2019 SCC OnLine SC 1133, in support of his contention that the Courts must be restrained and cautious while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual matters. Para 19 reads as under:

“19. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court in all the aforesaid decisions has cautioned time and again that Courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior Courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The Courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the Courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in judges’ robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. As laid down in the judgments cited above the Courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the Courts must give “fair play in the joints” to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer.”

19. Counsel for respondent No.4 has adopted the arguments raised by Mr. Bindra, Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, as also Mr. Shukla, Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, besides strongly opposing this writ petition on the ground of delay.

20. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties and have considered their rival contentions. There is no quarrel with the legal propositions sought to be relied upon by Counsels appearing for the respondents with regard to the scope of judicial review in commercial matters, more particularly in matters relating to tenders.

21. The law with regard to deciding the matters pertaining to tenders is clear. In the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India, 1994 (SLT SOFT) 425=(1994) 6 SCC 651, it was held that the Courts are concerned only with the decisionmaking process and not with the decision itself.

22. Further in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, IV (2016) BC 485 (SC)=VI (2016) SLT 586=(2016) 16 SCC 818, more particularly, in the following paragraphs, it has been held as under:

“13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decisionmaking process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional Court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional Court interferes with the decision-making process or the decision.

“14. We must reiterate the words of caution that this Court has stated right from the time when Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, 1979 (SLT SOFT) 338=(1979) 3 SCC 489] was decided almost 40 years ago, namely, that the words used in the tender documents cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous — they must be given meaning and their necessary significance. In this context, the use of the word “metro” in Clause 4.2(a) of Section III of the bid documents and its connotation in ordinary parlance cannot be overlooked.

“15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.

“16. In the present appeals, although there does not appear to be any ambiguity or doubt about the interpretation given by Nmrcl to the tender conditions, we are of the view that even if there was such an ambiguity or doubt, the High Court ought to have refrained from giving its own interpretation unless it had come to a clear conclusion that the interpretation given by Nmrcl was perverse or mala fide or intended to favour one of the bidders. This was certainly not the case either before the High Court or before this Court.”

23. In the present case, it is common ground that in compliance with the tender conditions, the petitioner had submitted its technical and financial bid in a bigger envelope. Admittedly, the bigger envelope was sealed and so was the envelope containing the technical bid. The controversy involved is that the financial bid was found in an un-sealed condition at the bid-opening meeting. While it is the case of the petitioner that the envelope was sealed with glue, which may have opened-up, it is the contention of respondent No.1 that the envelope containing the financial bid was not sealed. During the course of hearing, none of the respondents have been able to give a plausible reply as to whether any prejudice has been caused to them by reason of the financial bid being found in an un-sealed state, whatever be the reason for that. In light of the fact that both the technical and financial bids were enclosed in a bigger envelope, which bigger envelope was admittedly sealed, except to say that the financial bid being found in an open condition was a violation of tender condition No.8 (ii), no palpable prejudice has been cited by any of the respondents. Counsels for the respondents however strongly urge that all conditions of the tender are to be strictly followed; and it is not for the Court to examine the relevancy or importance of any tender condition. On the question of delay, the respondents have contended that the petitioner has slept over his rights, being fully aware that his tender has been rejected in the month of November, 2018; and does not therefore deserve the indulgence of this Court.

24. As far as the question of delay is concerned, we are satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner that after rejection of his bid, he was not served any written communication in that regard. Resultantly, he addressed a representation to respondent No.1 on 12.2.2019, which also remained unanswered. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing W.P. (C) 2411/2019, which was decided by order dated 11.3.2019. Paras 4 and 5 of order dated 11.3.2019 read as under:

“4. Mr Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents states that the reasons regarding nonconsidering the petitioner's bid had been intimated to him, nonetheless, the same would be formally intimated to him in writing within a period of one week from today.

5. In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed. Needless to state that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision, it is not precluded from availing the remedies as available in law.”

25. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in fact thereafter, he was compelled to file a contempt case bearing CONT. CAS (C) 309/2019 to get respondent No.1 to furnish the reasons for rejection in writing, which was disposed of vide order dated 9.4.2019, which order reads as under:

“CONT.CAS(C) 309/2019

Issue notice. Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, the learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India accepts notice. He submits upon instructions that on 11.3.2019 the respondent was duly communicated about the order and the latter had promptly intimated the petitioner about the reason why his bid was not considered. Mr. Shukla has shown to the Court both the e-mail communications. The same are taken on record. He seeks time to file a compliance report within two weeks, Mr. Shukla assures that a proper communication on the letterhead of the respondent organization shall be conveyed to the petitioner by the 16th of this month.

The petition is disposed off in the above terms with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court in case of any difficulty.

A copy of this order be given dasti to the parties, under the signature of the Court Master.”

26. Having regard to the fact that a representation was made to respondent No.1, as also a contempt petition had to be filed, it is evident that the petitioner was eager to safeguard his rights and was continuously making efforts to get a copy of the rejection letter, which was supplied to him only in the month of April, 2019; and thereafter he filed the present writ petition, which was listed in the month of May, 2019. Accordingly, the objection with regard to delay and latches is without any force and is rejected.

27. Insofar as the adherence to the tender conditions is concerned, in the case of Lakhvinder Singh v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Another, W.P. (C) 1251/2019 decided on 28.11.2019, this Court has highlighted and drawn a distinction between the essential conditions of a tender document and ancillary conditions. Reading of Clause 8 of the tender document as a whole shows that the bids were to be submitted in a sealed envelope. However, this condition is to be considered in light of the fact that the bigger envelope containing the two-bid envelopes was in fact duly sealed. Additionally, none of the respondents have been able to show that any prejudice was caused to them on account of the financial bid envelop

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e remaining unsealed, whether inadvertently or on account of poor quality of glue or for any other reason; nor have the respondents been able to show that the integrity of the tendering process was vitiated by reason of the petitioner’s financial bid being found in open condition in the smaller envelope, which was inside the sealed bigger envelope. 28. It may also be relevant to notice that the entire bid opening process happened simultaneously, in a closed room, in full view of all bidders/their representatives; and there was accordingly no scope for any manipulation or tampering with the bids of any of the bidders. Even stretching imagination, if the petitioner’s financial bid was found in an open condition, the only person which could possibly have been prejudiced, would be the petitioner; who is however, not complaining. 29. For the sake of completeness, we must also deal with the case of Payal S. Padhiar (supra) referred by Counsel for respondent No. 2, only to say that the issue of whether or not a bid is submitted in 'sealed' condition must be assessed from a practical and pragmatic view-point. The day and age of applying wax, lead or other similar material with a stamp design or any such similar device is long gone. In our view, the issue of whether a bid was 'sealed' must only be seen from the perspective of whether the contents of the bid were in any manner ‘leaked’ or made available to a competitor in a manner as to prejudice the bidder; or in a manner as would vitiate the integrity of the tendering process. No pedantic or formulaic construction is to be given to the requirement of ‘sealing’ of a bid. 30. In the present case, as discussed above, all bids were opened in a room at the same time; the petitioner's financial bid was in any case contained in a smaller envelope, which though found in an unsealed condition by itself, was placed in a bigger envelope which was properly sealed ; and accordingly no possibility of any leakage of its contents or prejudice to any party was possibly caused. 31. In these circumstances, we do not think that the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in any way helps respondent No. 2. 32. In the process what has really transpired is that respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 have come to be empaneled as a consequence of the tendering process and have had the advantage of lead-time of about one year as empaneled caterers for respondent No.1 center. However, this Court does not propose to, and indeed cannot, turn the clock back by giving the petitioner any benefit for the one year already gone-by. This Court is however of the view that the petitioner’s financial bid being found in an open condition is not a matter of any consequence or moment in so far as the tendering process is concerned. Without having to delve any further into the possible causes thereof, in our view, interests of justice will be served if at this stage it is directed that the petitioner’s technical and financial bid be also considered by respondent No.1; and if the petitioner is found to be otherwise successful, the petitioner be also be empaneled as one of the caterers for respondent No.1 center for the balance of the tender/contract period, without allowing any claim of any nature whatsoever with regard to the period which has already lapsed. 33. In the circumstances, it is directed that the petitioner’s technical and financial bid be opened; and if found successful, the petitioner be empaneled for the balance tender/contract period, without any claims for the past period. 34. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed in the above terms. These directions be complied with within six weeks from today. Writ Petition allowed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

25-09-2020 Sandeep Gururaj Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
23-09-2020 The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Ltd., Chennai & Others Versus M/s. Jackson Laboratories Private Limited., Represented by its Managing Director Jugal Kishore, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-09-2020 Elite International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-09-2020 M.R. Vasumathi & Another Versus The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-09-2020 M/s Indian Electrical Services Versus The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Chennai. Another Versus S. Manikandan High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-09-2020 Sandeep Agarwal & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
28-08-2020 Dr. Samjaison Versus The Deputy Director of Health Services, Ramanathapuram & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
28-08-2020 Sandeep Gowda @ Gowda Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 M/s. Web International Cargo Ltd., Rep. by its proprietor Srinivas P. Bhat Versus M/s. Magnum Logistics Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Jayaram High Court of Karnataka
26-08-2020 Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd. & Another Versus Unwired Planet International Ltd. & Another United Kingdom Supreme Court
26-08-2020 Mansingh Yadav Versus Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Services Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director, District Raipur Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
26-08-2020 T.S. Abinesh & Another Versus The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus, Egmore, Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-08-2020 Greencrest Financial Services Limited Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
24-08-2020 The Director of Income-Tax International Taxation, Bangalore & Another Versus The Executive Engineer, M/s. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
20-08-2020 M/s. Life Cell International Private Limited, Represented by its Company Secretary D. Mahesh, Chennai Versus Vinay Katrela High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3, Chennai Versus Visual Graphics Computing Services India Private Limited, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-08-2020 Welworth Software Private Limited Versus Sun Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd. & Another. High Court of Delhi
17-08-2020 Hariom Project Private Limited Versus Military Engineer Services, Director Of Contract Management And Ors. High Court of Delhi
11-08-2020 Sandeep Kohli & Another Versus Rajvir Hadda & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-08-2020 M/s. Exl Careers & Another Versus Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited Supreme Court of India
31-07-2020 Sandeep Kumar Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
29-07-2020 Yogesh Suresh Chaudhari Versus M/S. Auto Wheels, Kubota Tractor Sales Services & Spares, Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-07-2020 N. Madhavan Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2020 A. Praveen Kumar Versus The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Egmore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
20-07-2020 Suganthi Versus The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-07-2020 M/s. SBI Cards & Payments Services Pvt. Ltd., Haryana Versus Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, West Bengal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 Sandeep Batra Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
17-07-2020 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Delhi International Airport Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
17-07-2020 Paras International Exports Versus Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
15-07-2020 Sandeep Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
07-07-2020 M.R. Balakrishnan Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Excise Inspector, Thiruvalla Excise Range, Notice to whom may be Served on The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
06-07-2020 M.R. Manoj Kumar Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Thiruvananthauram & Others High Court of Kerala
02-07-2020 BSA Citi Courier Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax Delhi West & Another High Court of Delhi
30-06-2020 Dr. P.S. Sandeep & Others Versus The Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-06-2020 Coromandel International Ltd. (Earlier Known As Coromandel Fertillisers Ltd.) Through its Authorized Representative, Vishakhapatnam & Others Versus Kamrubai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-06-2020 Aakash Educational Services Ltd. Versus Sahib Sital Singh Bajwa & Others High Court of Delhi
26-06-2020 Arshleen Grewal Versus Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, Punjab & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 IRCON International Ltd. Versus M/s. Meumal Athwani High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-06-2020 Dr. S. Anusha Versus The Director of Medical and Health Services, Teynampet, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-06-2020 Pro Interactive Services India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commisioner of Central Goods & Services Tax Delhi South & Another High Court of Delhi
24-06-2020 Bhima Jewellery & Diamonds (P) Ltd., Chevayoor, Represented By Its Director Girirajan Balachandra Kiran, Kozhikode Versus O. Sandeep Kumar High Court of Kerala
23-06-2020 M/s. Angelique International Limited Versus Public Electricity Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
17-06-2020 Bresco Electrical Services Ltd. (In Liquidation) Versus Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd. United Kingdom Supreme Court
17-06-2020 Visa Europe Services LLC & Others Versus Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd. & Others United Kingdom Supreme Court
16-06-2020 Mr.X Versus The Inspector of Police, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai City & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-06-2020 M/s. Sbi Cards & Payments Services Ltd., New Delhi Versus Vishal Sabharwal & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 Aberdeen Asia Pacific Including Japan Equity Fund Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1(1)(1) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-06-2020 Hotel Nikhil Sai International Bar & Restaurant Versus Assistant Commissioner ST Audit & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
10-06-2020 Director of Income-Tax, International Taxation Versus M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
09-06-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Chief Engineer High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-06-2020 Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
04-06-2020 Goods & Services Tax Network, New Delhi & Others Versus M/s. Leo Distributors, Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
01-06-2020 Sri Vinayaka Caterors & Consultants, Partnership Firm, Represented by its Partners, K. Eshwar Versus The Executive Warden, International Hostels, Anna University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Aditya Birla Money Limited, Rep. By its Head – Legal & Compliance, L.R. Murali Krishnan Versus The National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Investors Services Cell, Kotturpuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Dr. G. Gowthaman Versus The Joint Director, Medical & Rural Health Services, Tiruppur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-05-2020 Sandeep Kumar Ravesh Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
29-05-2020 Financial Services Complaints Limited Versus The Chief Ombudsman Court of Appeal of New Zealand
19-05-2020 M/s. Shriram Capital Limited, A Limited Company represented by its Vice-President, N. Mani Versus The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Tvl.M.R. Motor Company, Represented by its Managing Partner, N. Rajagopal Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), (FAC), Salem Town (South) Circle, Salem High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-05-2020 M.R. Bhat & Others Versus India Awake for Transparency, Rep. by P. Sadanand Goud & Others High Court of Karnataka
08-05-2020 The Management of M/s. Recipharm Pharma Services Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Assistant General Manager Versus G. Vasanthkumr & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-05-2020 B. Abimathi Versus The Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
04-05-2020 Bhansali Productions Pvt.Ltd. Versus Eros International Medial Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-05-2020 M/s. Inter Ads Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. Versus Busworld International Cooperatieve Vennootschap Met Beperkte Anasprakelijkheid High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Banyan Tree Growth Capital L.L.C. Versus Axiom Cordages Limited (Previously Known as Axion Impex International Ltd.) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-04-2020 Flemingo Travel Retail Limited, Having Registered Office at Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Represented by Its Authorised Signatory Nixon Varghese Versus Kannur International Airport Limited, Mattannur, Represented by Its Managing Director & Another High Court of Kerala
21-04-2020 Mahadeo Construction Co. at Chhatarpur, Palamau Through its partner Anil Kumar Singh Versus The Union of India through the Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
21-04-2020 State Bank of India, A Government of India Undertaking Rep by its DGM and Branch Head Stressed Asset Management Branch, Hyderabad Versus The Union of India, Ministry of Finance Rep by its Secretary Services Tax Wing, South Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
20-04-2020 M/s. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Versus Vedanta Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
08-04-2020 N. Rajagopal Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-04-2020 In Re : COVID 19 - Relief & Services at the Andaman & Nicobar Islands High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-03-2020 M/s. Tina Developer A Proprietorship Firm, Represented, By Its Prop. Mr. Sanjay Palangdar Versus Tapas Ray & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-03-2020 Sandeep Sarin Versus M/s. Clarion Properties Limited Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
18-03-2020 Union of India Versus Bharat Biotech International Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 Carewell Security Services Private Limited Versus Employees Provident Fund Organization High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
17-03-2020 Aman Bhatnagar Versus Falcon Reality Services P. Ltd. & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
13-03-2020 Dr. Rajesh Jhorawat Versus Life Cell International Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 M/s. Shriram Capital Limited, A Limited Company represented by its Vice-President, N. Mani Versus The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd. V/S Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, New Delhi High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Joshi Technologies International, Inc-India Projects Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
11-03-2020 M/s. Meyer Apparel Ltd. Versus M/s. Panchanan International Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
11-03-2020 M/s. Chase Security Services, through its proprietor Ravindra Prabhakar Sawant & Another Versus State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Goa, Goa Secretariat & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
09-03-2020 Citi-financial Retail Services India Ltd., Rep. by its Assistant Manager-Collections J. Srikumar Versus Dove Finance Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Uttam Datta Versus Proprietor, International Trading Co. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-03-2020 Tirunelveli Solar Project Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Mr.P.Elavarasu, Asst. General Manager – Project, Rajasthan Versus Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Rep. by its Chairman, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 In The Matter of:D & I Taxcon Services Private Limited Versus Vinod Kumar Kothari, Liquidator of Nicco Corporation Limited National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
03-03-2020 Cambridge International School & Another Versus Priyanka Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
02-03-2020 Sandeep Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Inspector of Police, Tirur, Through The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
02-03-2020 The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VII Commissionerate, Chennai V/S M/s. Sea Queen Shipping Services (P) Ltd., Adyar, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 Scindia Potteries & Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ankur Jain & Others High Court of Delhi
28-02-2020 M/s. Techno Global Services Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
28-02-2020 Pacific World Shipping PTE Ltd., Singapore Versus Dadi Impex Pvt. Ltd. Through Mr. Anandprakash Choudhari, Mumbai & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
28-02-2020 Vasant Mishrilal Parakh & Others Versus TATA Capital Financial Services Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-02-2020 M/s. Padmavathi Hospitality & Facilities Management Services, Rep. by its Partner & Authorized Representative Pradeep Kanumuri & Another V/S The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking) Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Commissioner, Directorate of Logistics Versus M/s. Almighty Techserv, Proprietor Mr. Manish Dalmia & Another Supreme Court of India
28-02-2020 Seed Works International Pvt., Ltd. & Another Versus Banothu Rangamma & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
27-02-2020 World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. & Others Versus Rajiv Negandhi West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-02-2020 Dhariwal Infrastructure Limited Mr. Subhransu Gupta, Chief Financial Officer CESE House Chowringhe Square Kolkata Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction