M/S SAM BUILT WELL PVT. LTD. versus DEEPAK BUILDERS & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 14 S.C.R. 479 · Decided: 14-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 14 S.C.R. 479 
M/S SAM BUILT WELL PVT. LTD. 
v. 
DEEPAK BUILDERS & ORS. 
(Civi!Appea!No. 21858of2017) 
DECEMBER 14, 2017 
[R. F. NARIMAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] 
Contract - Tender - In the instant case, the NIT invited bids 
from contractors who had engaged in construction of educational 
buildings - The technical evaluation report stated that the eligibility 
criteria contained in NIT was not met by respondent no. I - The 
other two expert bodies also reiterated the ineligibility of respondent 
no. I - Respondent no. I filed writ petition which was dismissed by 
the single judge of High Court - However. Division Bench of High 
Court allowed the appeal of respondent no. I holding that there 
A 
B 
c 
was no malafides in the instant case and respondent no.I was 
D 
eligible qnd directing the respondent no.2 to consider the case of 
respondent no. I along with other eligible bids - Ultimately, award 
was given to respondent no.I since it quoted amount less than that 
of appellant - On appeal, held: The three expert committees 
scrutinized the tender of respondent no.I and found him ineligible 
E 
- The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court 
expressly stated that no malafides were involved in the instant case 
- Equally, while setting aside the judgment of the single judge. the 
Division Bench did not state that the three expert committees have 
arrived at a perverse conclusion - In tender matters, s'cope of 
judicial review is limited - Not having found malafides or perversity 
in the technical· expert reports. any appreciation by the Court itself 
of technical evaluation, best left to technical experts, would be 
outside its ken - As a result. the single judge was correct in placing 
reliance on the three expert committee reports - The Division Bench. 
F 
in setting aside the said judgment. has clearly gone outside the 
G 
bounds ofjudicial review - Award of tender to the appellant is. 
restored as it is willing to match the offer of respondent no.I -
Administrative law - Judicial review. 
H 
479 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Not having found malafides or perversity in the 
technical expert reports, the principle of judicial restraint kicks 
in, and any appreciation by the Court itself of technical evaluation, 
best left to technical experts, would be outside its ken. As a 
B result, the Single Judge was correct in his reliance on the three 
expert committee reports. The Division Bench, in setting aside 
the said judgment, has clearly gone outside the bounds of judicial 
review. [Para 1111486-E-F) 
2. The appellant, has stated that the appellant is willing to 
C match the offer of Respondent No.1. The said statement is 
recorded and it is ordered that the tender awarded to Respondent 
No.1 based upon the Division Bench judgment, must be set aside, 
and the award of the tender to the Appellant must be restored. It 
will be open to Respondent No.2 to accept appellant's offer that 
the project will be executed at the amount indicated by 
D Respondent No.1. [Para 12)(486-G-H) 
E 
A/cons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. 
Ltd. (2016) 16 sec 818 : [2016) 3 SCR 551; 
Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd. (2016) 15 SCC 272 : 
12016) 8 SCR 224 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[2016] 3 SCR 551 
[2016) 8 SCR 224 
referred to 
referred to 
Para9 
Para 10 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 21858 
of2017. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 04.08.2017 of the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CA CWP No.14/2017. 
K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv., Sridhar Potaraju, Arjun Singh, Mrs. 
G Arnita Gupta, Ms. Madhvi Khanna, Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Advs. for the 
Appellant. 
H 
Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Ashish Batra, 
S.S. Shamshery, V. Balaji, G. S. Makker, Advs. for the Respondents. 
MIS SAM BUILT WELL PVT. LTD. v. DEEPAK BUILDERS 
481 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The present appeal involves a notice inviting tenders (NIT) 
dated 16'h March, 2017 by which the director of the Institute ofNano 
Science and Technology, Mohali, invited percentage rate composite bids 
from eligible firrriS/contractors in a two bid system for construction of B 
the Institute of Nano Science and Technology Campus at knowledge 
City, Sector 81, Mohali, consisting of research, academic and 
administrative buildings together withhoste~ residential, amenity and utili
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.