<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (6) TMI 1476 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310549</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging bid rejection based on failure to meet minimum eligibility criteria. The petitioner consortium member showed Rs. 98.01 crores as short-term borrowings in their balance sheet under current liabilities, which disqualified them under RFQ clause 7.4. The court rejected the petitioner&#039;s attempt to reclassify this as long-term borrowing through a chartered accountant certificate, finding no sanctity in such certification against the petitioner&#039;s own records. The court found the eligibility criteria neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional, noting the petitioner had agreed to abide by all RFQ terms and conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Oct 2023 20:38:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=730762" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 1476 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310549</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging bid rejection based on failure to meet minimum eligibility criteria. The petitioner consortium member showed Rs. 98.01 crores as short-term borrowings in their balance sheet under current liabilities, which disqualified them under RFQ clause 7.4. The court rejected the petitioner&#039;s attempt to reclassify this as long-term borrowing through a chartered accountant certificate, finding no sanctity in such certification against the petitioner&#039;s own records. The court found the eligibility criteria neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional, noting the petitioner had agreed to abide by all RFQ terms and conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310549</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>