When rejection of tender bid is not permissible?

In the present case, taking note of the observations and the
purpose for which the EMD has to be deposited, we find that it cannot be

said that failure to upload the scanned copy is an essential term of the
tender process especially considering that there is nothing on record to show
that at any point of time, the Petitioners who were otherwise holding a draft
in favour of the concerned Department had failed to produce the proof of the
scanned copy when demanded. In such circumstances, the action of the
concerned Department in refusing to open the bid of the Petitioners is
arbitrary, unreasonable and cannot be sustained.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 479 OF 2015
 Bharat Conductors Pvt. Ltd.,

V 
The Executive Engineer,

 CORAM :- F.M. REIS &
 NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.
 Date : 7/8th September, 2016.
Citation: 2016(6) MHLJ 408

Print Page

When court can set aside arbitration award as per S 34 of Arbitration Act?

On perusal of the judgment relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondents in Associate Builders vs. Delhi
Development Authority (supra), it is clear that the Court can set-aside
the award if the award is against justice or morality, discloses patent
illegality, contrary to the terms of the contract and not in accordance
with the substantive law of India. In my view, the petitioners have
made out a case that the award is patently illegal on the face of
record and the learned arbitrator has decided contrary to the terms of
the tender documents and has also decided contrary to the law laid
down by the Supreme Court and this Court and thus this Court has
ample power to set-aside such award under section 34 of the said
Act.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO.240 OF 2013
Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Limited,

V
Vijai Electricals Limited

 CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.

 PRONOUNCED ON : 4TH FEBRUARY, 2015
Citation:2016 (5) ALLMR74

Print Page

Whether society is estopped from challenging bid amount after acceptance of bid?

For the reasons given above, we have no hesitation to
reject the aforesaid contention. It is re-emphasized that when the
decision was taken to go through the open auction process which
was even otherwise justifiable in order to augment the State
revenue, the appellant-society cannot object to the same and claim

the settlement of ghat in its favour on payment of 15% of the
reserved Jama/settlement amount for the previous years. In fact,
such a contention is not even available to the appellant-society
inasmuch as the decision of the respondents to go through the
auction process was never questioned or challenged by the
appellant-society in any judicial proceedings. On the contrary, it
jumped to the offer of the respondents and accepted the bid but, at
the same time, put the uncalled for condition that it was accepting
the same under protest. Therefore, it cannot now turn around and
make out a case that the bid amount should have been 15% of the
reserved Jama/settlement for the previous years.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1853 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.8448 of 2012)
ALAULI ANCHAL BOAT TRAFFIC COOPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD., PHULTORA AND ANR. ....Appellants
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ….Respondents
Citation:(2016)6 SCC296
R. BANUMATHI, J.

Print Page