BTL EPC LTD. versus MACAWBER BEEKAY PVT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 13 S.C.R. 152 · Decided: 18-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 152 : 2023 INSC 864
152
CASE DETAILS
BTL EPC LTD.
v.
MACAWBER BEEKAY PVT LTD AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 5968 of 2023)
SEPTEMBER 18, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI, 
J.B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The issue pertains to the pre-qualifi cation 
requirement for bidders, notifi ed by the contractor; and whether the bid 
submitted by the successful bidder was liable to be rejected on the ground 
that the Chinese company with whom it had entered into a consortium 
agreement was not registered with the competent authority in terms of the 
Public Procurement Order.
Contract – Complex technical contract – Power of judicial review 
– Writ petition by the competing bidder challenging the contract 
awarded to the successful bidder on the ground that it was in breach of 
conditions, the tender submitted did not meet the technical requirements 
– Dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court, however the Division 
Bench set aside the order – Interference with:
Held: In contracts involving complex technical issues, the Court should 
exercise restraint in exercising the power of judicial review – Even if a party 
to the contract is ‘State’ within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution, 
amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court, 
the Court should not readily interfere in commercial or contractual matters – 
Court ought to defer to the discretion of the tender inviting authority which 
is best placed to interpret their terms – Courts to review the decision-making 
process and examine arbitrariness or mala fi des, if any – Neither the State 
Power Generation Company nor the contractor raised any dispute as regards 
the eligibility of the successful bidder to bid for the contract – Challenge 
was addressed by the competing bidder whose bid was much higher than 
153
BTL EPC LTD. v. MACAWBER BEEKAY PVT LTD AND 
OTHERS
the successful bidder – Primary decision on whether the successful bidder 
meets the technical requirements of the tender on account of its collaborator 
being a Chinese company that was not registered had to be determined by the 
contractor – Contractor has not found that there was any breach – Contractor 
and the State Power Generation Company found that the agreement with 
the Chinese company was in the nature of a service agreement and not a 
“consortium” under the pre-qualifi cation requirements, thus, the registration 
requirement did not apply – Division Bench ought to have proceeded with 
circumspection and interfered only when the order suff erred from perversity 
or error – Interference of the Division Bench in the judgment of the Single 
Judge not warranted – Furthermore, setting aside the award of the contract 
would cause insuperable diffi  culties in the implementation of the contract 
since the work under the contract has progressed, and both the State Power 
Generation Company and the contractor, being public entities have invested 
funds for the realization of the project – Thus, the judgment of the Division 
Bench set aside and that of the Single Judge restored – Judicial restraint – 
Constitution of India. [Paras 33-40]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Tata Motors Limited v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport 
Undertaking (BEST) and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 671; Monte Carlo 
Limited v. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, (2016) 15 SCC 
272 : [2016] 8 SCR 224 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5968 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2023 of the High Court of 
Karnataka at Bengaluru in WA No.1169 of 2022.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 5969 and 5970 of 2023.
Appearances:
Mukul Rohatgi, Shyam Divan, M. Dhyan Chinnappa, Gourab Banerjee, 
V. Giri, Harish Salve, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advs., Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
154
Agrawala, Pranjit Bhattacharya, Abhirup Dasgupta, Rishabha Raj Thakur, 
Chirag Nayak, Ishaan Duggal, Ms. Mukta Halbe, E.C. Agrawala, Ms. Mayuri 
Raghuvanshi, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Ms. Akanksha Rathore, Dhruv Sharma, 
Venkata Supreeth, Shubro, D. Abhinav Rao, Rahul Jajoo, Ms. Prerna Robin, 
Devadipta Das, Ms. Rao Vishwaja, Sandeep Grover, Aditya Nayyar, Tarang 
Agarwal, Abhishek Arora, Toshiv Goyal,   Ritwik Mahopatra, Anshul Syal, 
Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Advs. for the appearing parties.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHAN

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.