<?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 (7) TMI 1720 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468059</link>
    <description>Tender disqualification must rest on objective material sufficient to justify bona fide administrative satisfaction; a bare circumstance such as a shared IP address was held too slender to sustain cartel-based rejection, and later-added grounds not forming part of the original decision process could not cure the defect. Rejection for alleged submission of a false experience certificate also failed where verification was incomplete and the record did not support a final adverse finding without fuller scrutiny of the competing documents. The challenge to award of work to the fourth bidder likewise required fresh examination because the issue of dissolution and reconstitution of the partnership firm had not been properly considered on the existing record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2026 12:17:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896851" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1720 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468059</link>
      <description>Tender disqualification must rest on objective material sufficient to justify bona fide administrative satisfaction; a bare circumstance such as a shared IP address was held too slender to sustain cartel-based rejection, and later-added grounds not forming part of the original decision process could not cure the defect. Rejection for alleged submission of a false experience certificate also failed where verification was incomplete and the record did not support a final adverse finding without fuller scrutiny of the competing documents. The challenge to award of work to the fourth bidder likewise required fresh examination because the issue of dissolution and reconstitution of the partnership firm had not been properly considered on the existing record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468059</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>