Tender eligibility is governed by the plain meaning of tender terms; "Company" did not include a firm, so exclusion stood.

Tender eligibility turns on the plain and contextual meaning of the tender terms. Where the notice invited participation by an individual or a company and other clauses contemplated the company's seal and authorised representatives, the word "Company" was held to bear its ordinary meaning under the Companies Act and not to include a firm. Reliance on Section 366 of the Companies Act was found inapplicable, and other statutes cited for interpretation were treated as irrelevant to the tender conditions. The respondent firm was therefore ineligible to participate, its exclusion was justified, the High Court's contrary view was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the word "Company" in the notice inviting tender included a firm, and whether the respondent firm was eligible to participate in the tender process.

Analysis: The notice inviting tender expressly required participation by an individual or a company, and its other clauses referred to signing of documents with the company's seal and execution by authorised representatives of the company. On a reading of the tender conditions as a whole, the term "Company" could only bear its ordinary meaning under the Companies Act and could not be extended to include a firm. Reliance on Section 366 of the Companies Act was held to be inapplicable, and other statutes referred to for interpretation were found irrelevant to the tender conditions.

Conclusion: The respondent firm was not eligible under the tender conditions, and its exclusion from the tender process was justified. The High Court's contrary view was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Tender eligibility must be determined by the plain and contextual meaning of the tender terms, and a term used in a tender cannot be enlarged beyond its ordinary legal meaning to include entities not covered by those terms.

---