M/S. BECIL versus ARRAYCOM INDIA LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 277 · Decided: 20-10-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 277 
( 
M/S. BECIL 
A 
v. 
ARRAYCOM INDIA LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6978 of 2009) 
OCTOBER 20, 2009 
B 
[MARKANOEY KAT JU _AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
Contract: 
c 
Tender - Acceptance of bid by public authority -
lnterfererlce by High Court - Scope of - Prasar Bharati 
inviting tenders for supply of transmitters - Appellant and 
respondent no. 1. offering quotations - As regards sales tax, 
' 
_,. 
respondent no. 1 quoting price inclusive of sales tax but at D 
the same time asking for concessional CID forms -
Department accepting appellant's bid being the lowest - High 
Court allowing writ petition of respondent no. 1 - HELD: In 
administrative matters, scope of judicial review is limited and 
the judiciary must exercise judicial restraint in such matters 
E 
- Moreover, the view of Prasar Bharati also appears 
reasonable as it has to pay the amount inclusive of sale tax, 
since there is no concessional form - If Prasar Bharati has 
-1-
taken up one possible interpretation, High Court should not 
have intervened - Paragraph 2 of the bid of respondent no. 
F 
1 relating to sales tax is ambiguous and this is the fault of 
respondent no. 1 itself by giving such an ambiguous proposal 
- Respondent no. 1 should ~ave given a clear cut bid -
Paragraph 2 of bid of respondent no. 1 has two interpretations 
(i) it is an inclusive bid; and (ii) that sales tax can be added 
to that bid -
Prasar Bhara(i ha·s.. taken the second G 
+ 
interpretation, which is a reasonable and possible 
interpretation - Judgment of High Court set aside - Judicial 
review. 
277 
H 
278 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
Tata Cellular vs. Union of/ndia AIR 1996 SC 11= (1994) 
B 
6 sec 651, relied on. 
' 
Case Law Reference: 
(1994) 6 sec 651 
relied on 
para 14 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
6978 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 2.2.2009 of the Division 
Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (Civil) 
C No. 7865 of 2008. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 6979 of 2009. 
D 
Mohan Parasaran and G.E. Vahanvati, ASG, T.S. Doabia, 
E 
Neeraj Malhotra, T.V.S. R. Sreyan, Nikhil Nayyar, Manoj Goel, 
Shuvodeep Roy, Wajeeh Shafiq, Gopal Verma, Puja Jain (for 
Dua Associates), Ranjana Narayan and Rashmi Malhotra (for 
D.S. Mehra) for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
Civil Appeal No.6978 of 2009 @ SLP(C) 5461/2009 
F 
G 
Leave granted. 
This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment 
of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated 02nd 
February, 2009 passed in Writ Petition(C) No. 7865 of 2008. 
The facts in brief are: 
Respondent No.2 (Prasar Bharti) issued a Notice Inviting 
Tender (NIT) on 20th October, 2006 for the supply of two 
H transmitters of 1000 KW (or 1 MW) each. The bidding was a 
MIS BECIL v. ARRAYCOM INDIA LTD. & ORS. 
279 
· two-stage process involving a technical bid and a financial bid. 
A 
f 
There is no dispute that the respondent No.1 (Arraycom) and 
the appellant (BECIL) were both technically qualified. 
In respect of the financial bid which was opened on 30th 
July, 2007, the quotation given by Arraycom was for a sum of 
B 
Rs.51.57 cro,res and it was stated therein that: 
"1. Prices at INR including Custom Duty, Packaging, 
.... 
Forwarding, Freight & Insurance . 
-· 
2. CST (Central Sales Tax) is inclusive in thr above prices. c 
AIR will have to give concessional forms CID. 
3. Billing will be done from our Naida office. 
-
4. Validity of offer upto 120 days from the date of opening 
'::$ 
~ 
(I.e. up to 16.06.2007)." 
D 
. 
' 
The quotation given by BECIL was for Rs.47.35 crores and 
it was stated that: 
"1. Prices in INR. FOR destination, including Freight, 
E 
Insurance & Customs Duty. 
2. Sales Tax extra @ 4% against form CID. 
-~ 
3. Sales Tax extra @ 12.5% in case form CID is not 
provided. 
F 
... 
4. Validity of offer upto 31.05.2007." 
For the purposes of this decision, we are only concerned 
-
with the sales tax element in the price bid. We may note, as a 
matter of fact. that there is no dispute that Form C under the G 
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is not relevant to the facts of the 
+ 
case and Form D under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was 
abolished with effect from 1st April, 2007. There is also no 
dispute that the bids of Arraycom and BECIL were valid and 
subsisting at all material times. 
H 
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
Based on the quotations, q
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.