LexTATA MOTORS LIMITED versus THE BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY & TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING (BEST) AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 695 [2023] 6 S.C.R. 695 695 TATA MOTORS LIMITED v. THE BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY & TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING (BEST) AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No.3897 of 2023) MAY 19, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.] Constitution of India – Power of Judicial review – Contractual/ commercial matters – Held: Courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising Powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters – In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant – Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer – In the present case, TATA Motors deviated from the material and the essential term of the Tender – High Court having once declared TATA Motors as non-responsive and having stood disqualified from the Tender process should not have entered into the fray of investigating into the decision of BEST to declare EVEY as the eligible bidder – High Court was not exercising its writ jurisdiction in public interest – It looked into a petition filed by a party trying to assert its own rights – Grant of judicial relief at the instance of a party which does not fulfil the requisite criteria is misplaced – BEST committed no error or cannot be held guilty of favoritism, etc. in allowing EVEY to submit a revised Annexure Y as the earlier one was incorrect on account of a clerical error – This exercise itself was not sufficient to declare the entire bid offered by EVEY as unlawful or illegal – Writ court should refrain from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer unless something very gross or palpable is pointed out – Initiating a fresh tender process at this stage may consume lot of time and also loss to the public exchequer – Part of the judgment of the High Court by which the decision of BEST to accept the tender of EVEY was set aside and it was left to the discretion of BEST to undertake a fresh tender process, set aside. A B C D E F G H 696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R. Constitution of India – Exercise of power of judicial review in matters as to tenders or award of contracts – Special features to be borne in mind – Discussed. Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India (2020) 16 SCC 489 : [2019] 10 SCR 932; Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and Others (2005) 1 SCC 679 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 496; Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617 : [2000] 1 SCR 505; Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Others (2007) 14 SCC 517 – relied on. W.B. State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 451 : [2001] 1 SCR 352; Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal v. Union of India and Others (2002) 6 SCC 315 : [2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 284; N.G. Projects Limited v. Vinod Kumar Jain and Others (2022) 6 SCC 127; Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Others (1999) 1 SCC 492 : [1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 421; S.S. & Company v. Orrisa Mining Corporation Limited (2008) 5 SCC 772 : [2008] 5 SCR 598; Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works and Others (1991) 3 SCC 273 : [1991] 2 SCR 696; Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Others (2000) 5 SCC 287 : [2000] 3 SCR 1159; Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies and Another (2009) 6 SCC 171 : [2009] 6 SCR 663; Maa Binda Express Carrier and Another v. North-East Frontier Railway and Others (2014) 3 SCC 760 : [2013] 12 SCR 529; Jagannath Behera & Ors. v. Raja Harihar Singh Mardaraj Bhramarbara Roy [1958] SCR 1067; Karanpura Development Co. Ltd v. Raja Kamakshya Narain Singh Etc. [1956] SCR 325; Vasantkumar Radhakisan Vora v. Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay (1991) 1 SCC 761 : [1990] 3 SCR 825; Steel Authority of India Ltd v. Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd (2009) 10 SCC 63 : [2009] 14 SCR 253 – referred to. A B C D E F G H 697 Case Law Reference [2001] 1 SCR 352 referred to Para 28 [2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 284 referred to Para 29 [1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 421 referred to Para 32 [2008] 5 SCR 598 referred to Para 32 [1991] 2 SCR 696 referred to Para 34 [2000] 3 SCR 1159 referred to Para 35 [2009] 6 SCR 663 referred to Para 35 [2013] 12 SCR 529 referred to Para 35 [1958] SCR 1067 referred to Para 37 [1956] SCR 325 referred to Para 37 [1990] 3 SCR 825 referred to Para 37 [2009] 14 SCR 253 referred to Para 37 [2019] 10 SC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.