https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196083 The court quashed the qualification of respondent No. 5 due to non-compliance with the Earnest Money Deposit requirement but upheld the qualification of respondent No. 6. The petitioner's claim to award the contract to respondent No. 6 was dismissed as their bid offered significant cost savings. The court partially allowed the petition, setting aside respondent No. 5's qualification while rejecting the petitioner's request to consider their bid. en-us Wed, 21 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:10:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196083 The court quashed the qualification of respondent No. 5 due to non-compliance with the Earnest Money Deposit requirement but upheld the qualification of respondent No. 6. The petitioner's claim to award the contract to respondent No. 6 was dismissed as their bid offered significant cost savings. The court partially allowed the petition, setting aside respondent No. 5's qualification while rejecting the petitioner's request to consider their bid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 21 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196083