M/S SAM BUILT WELL PVT. LTD. v. DEEPAK BUILDERS INSC 1021

NAME OF THE CASE: Sam Built Well Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deepak Builders and Ors. (14.12.2017 - Supreme Court of India)

FACTS: The conflict originated from a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) issued on March 16, 2017, for the construction of the Institute of Nano Science and Technology Campus in Mohali. According to Clause 8 of the NIT, bidders were required to provide evidence of having successfully completed similar projects, specifically institutional or educational campuses featuring at least five-storey reinforced cement concrete (RCC) structures, which included various systems such as electrical, plumbing, and HVAC installations. Respondent No. 1 submitted a bid asserting compliance with Clause 8. However, three expert committees, including Tata Consultancy Services and the Building Works Committee, assessed the bid and determined that Respondent No. 1 did not meet the eligibility criteria. The Trial Court affirmed this conclusion, highlighting that the projects referenced by Respondent No. 1 did not satisfy the "similar work" requirement. Upon appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court overturned this ruling, declaring Respondent No. 1 eligible without identifying any malfeasance or deficiencies in the expert committee evaluations. As a result, the tender was awarded to Respondent No. 1. The appellant contested this ruling, contending that the Division Bench overstepped the bounds of judicial review by ignoring the findings of the experts.

ISSUES: 1. Did the High Court err in overturning the Trial Court's ruling and declaring Respondent No. 1 eligible, despite three expert committees unanimously deeming them ineligible? 2. Does judicial review include reassessing technical decisions made by expert bodies in tender-related matters?

HOLDING: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and: 1.Set aside the judgment of the Division Bench. 2.Restored the judgment of the Trial Court, which upheld the findings of the expert committees declaring Respondent No. 1 ineligible. 3.Directed the award of the tender to the Appellant, provided they matched the offer made by Respondent No. 1.

RATIONALE: The Supreme Court underscored the principle that judicial bodies should refrain from intervening in technical issues unless there is compelling evidence of misconduct, bias, or irrational conclusions. In the matter at hand, three expert committees evaluated Respondent No. 1’s bid and deemed it ineligible according to the specifications outlined in the tender document. The Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its authority by declaring Respondent No. 1 eligible without identifying any deficiencies in the expert assessments or offering justifications for dismissing them. The Court asserted that technical experts possess the necessary expertise to evaluate adherence to tender requirements, and their judgments should be honored unless proven to be erroneous. By referencing established legal precedents, the Supreme Court affirmed the correctness of the Trial Court’s ruling and reinstated it, thereby emphasizing the necessity of judicial restraint in such matters.

CITATION: <ref>MANU/SC/1598/2017<ref>