<?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>2025 (8) TMI 416 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776229</link>
    <description>The HC upheld the rejection of the petitioner&#039;s bid for failing to provide the mandatory UDIN on audit-related documents, affirming that the requirement is implicitly embedded in the tender conditions. The court held that the mandate to include UDIN arises from ICAI guidelines and statutory obligations, making non-compliance a valid ground for disqualification. It rejected the petitioner&#039;s claim of unawareness, noting the petitioner&#039;s experience as a civil contractor. The court found no violation of Articles 14, 19, 21, or 300A, nor any arbitrariness or discrimination in the bid rejection. The writ petition challenging the disqualification was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2025 07:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=841499" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 416 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776229</link>
      <description>The HC upheld the rejection of the petitioner&#039;s bid for failing to provide the mandatory UDIN on audit-related documents, affirming that the requirement is implicitly embedded in the tender conditions. The court held that the mandate to include UDIN arises from ICAI guidelines and statutory obligations, making non-compliance a valid ground for disqualification. It rejected the petitioner&#039;s claim of unawareness, noting the petitioner&#039;s experience as a civil contractor. The court found no violation of Articles 14, 19, 21, or 300A, nor any arbitrariness or discrimination in the bid rejection. The writ petition challenging the disqualification was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776229</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>