https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312685 The SC set aside the Division Bench judgment and restored the Single Judge's decision, allowing the contract allotment to stand. The Court held that tender authorities are best positioned to interpret their own documents, and judicial review should not second-guess expert technical evaluations unless arbitrariness or mala fide is alleged. The Tender Opening Committee's finding that the appellant satisfied the 5-year work experience requirement under Condition No. 27 was upheld. The Court rejected challenges regarding work experience certificates submitted under a different entity name, noting this argument wasn't raised in lower courts. en-us Fri, 18 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Mar 2024 18:03:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312685 The SC set aside the Division Bench judgment and restored the Single Judge's decision, allowing the contract allotment to stand. The Court held that tender authorities are best positioned to interpret their own documents, and judicial review should not second-guess expert technical evaluations unless arbitrariness or mala fide is alleged. The Tender Opening Committee's finding that the appellant satisfied the 5-year work experience requirement under Condition No. 27 was upheld. The Court rejected challenges regarding work experience certificates submitted under a different entity name, noting this argument wasn't raised in lower courts. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312685