9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Tender selection process, Appointment of event manager, Interpretation of tender clause, Contempt proceedings, Period of tender notice.
Tender Selection Process: The Ministry of Tourism invited tenders for organizing a travel expo, where M/s. Tafcon offered the highest upfront payment. Despite a lower offer from another party, the Selection Committee recommended M/s. Tafcon as the highest bidder based on upfront payment, leading to an agreement with the Union of India. However, a writ petition was filed challenging this decision, resulting in a legal battle. Appointment of Event Manager: The High Court allowed the appeal by the writ petitioner, setting aside M/s. Tafcon's appointment as the event manager and directing fresh tenders for future years. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's decision and found factual errors in the judgment, concluding that the Minister had indeed approved the appointment of M/s. Tafcon, overturning the High Court's decision. Interpretation of Tender Clause: The respondent claimed a misunderstanding of the tender clause regarding profit sharing, offering a lower upfront payment based on this interpretation. The Supreme Court noted this argument but ultimately upheld M/s. Tafcon's selection due to their superior offer, regardless of the clause's interpretation. Contempt Proceedings: The respondent initiated contempt proceedings against M/s. Tafcon for continuing to advertise the event despite the High Court's order. These proceedings were dismissed as the matter was pending in the Supreme Court. Period of Tender Notice: The Supreme Court clarified that the tender notice was for a three-year event, and the respondent's legal actions should not deprive M/s. Tafcon of the benefit they would have received had the writ petition not been filed. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's decision.
|
