Whether bidder can insist the Authority inviting tenders to enter into further negotiations?

  In Meerut Development Authority vs Association of Management Studies and Anr., 2009(6) SCC 171 the Supreme Court has clarified the rights of a Tenderer participating in the Tender Process as under: "17. A tender is an offer. It is something which invites and is communicated to notify acceptance. Broadly stated it must be unconditional; must be in the proper form, the person by whom tender is made must be able to and willing to perform his obligations. The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. However, a limited judicial review may be available in cases where it is established that the terms of the invitation to tender were so tailor-made to suit the convenience of any particular person with a view to eliminate all others from participating in the bidding process. The bidders participating in the tender process have no other right except the right to equality and fair treatment in the matter of evaluation of competitive bids offered by interested persons in response to notice inviting tenders in a transparent manner and free from hidden agenda. One cannot challenge the terms and conditions of the tender except on the above stated ground, the reason being the terms of the invitation to tender are in the realm of the contract. No bidder is entitled as a matter of right to insist the Authority inviting tenders to enter into further negotiations unless the terms and conditions of notice so provided for such negotiations."(emphasis supplied). {Para 14}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

  W.P.(C) 8939/2022 & C.M. No. 26865/2022

 M/S COSMO ENTERPRISE Vs UNION OF INDIA 

 CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. 

Date of Decision: 03.06.2022 

Print Page

Whether court can condone delay in filing written statement if parties are negotiating settlement during pendency of matter?

 Even otherwise, it is a well settled principle of law that if parties are negotiating settlement during the pendency of a matter, then the Court will condone the delay in filing of written statement due to such settlement talks. This Court, in its decision in Dr. Sukhdev Singh Gambhir v. Amrit Pal Singh & Ors., ILR (2003) I Delhi 577, inter alia held that:

"5. Having heard, counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the respective pleas urged before me, I am of the view that this is a case where the delay in filing of the written statement deserves to be condoned. Firstly it is a suit for partition concerning family members where every endeavor should be made for amicable settlement. Even otherwise, the mandate under Section 89 effort ought to be made to settle the matter. Secondly, the defendant had already filed the written statement in the suit in District Court. Hence it could not be the situation that the defendant was delaying the case, but on account of the attempts at settlement written statement was not filed " (emphasis added)

 The present suit squarely falls under the said exemption and this Court has the discretion to provide for extended timelines for completion of pleadings as per the prior statute.

Delhi High Court

Telefonaktiebolaget L.M ... vs Lava International Limited on 9 December, 2015

Author: Manmohan Singh

I.A. No. 25029/2015 in CS (OS) No.764/2015

Print Page

Whether details of counselling between estranged couple and counselor can be disclosed under RTI?

The   Commission   having   perused   the   file   found   that   the   file   is   a   proceeding   for  counselling, a prelude to or part of conciliation. The conciliation in general will include the  counselling also. The mediator or conciliator will advise or guide or apprise the parties of the  issues or steps that help resolving the dispute. When there is a counselling between a person  and counsellor, there emerges fiduciary relationship. Appellant has already filed a case for  domestic  violence.   Wife  claimed  that  proceeding  before  legal   service  authority   was  in  the  nature of divorce proceeding.  From the nature of proceedings it is apparently clear that it was  not divorce proceeding, but a counselling and conciliation proceeding, confidentiality of which  need to be protected as per the law and in public interest.  Information regarding negotiation,  mediation, conciliation and counselling will fall under exempted clause of information given in  fiduciary capacity and also private/personal information of other spouse and hence shall not be  disclosed. Hence the appeal is rejected.

Central Information Commission

Mrs rama Aggarwal vs Department Of Legal Affairs on 8 August, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

                   


            Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)

                                           Information Commissioner



                                           CIC/SA/A/2015/000305 

Print Page