<?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 (10) TMI 1403 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468418</link>
    <description>A tender eligibility requiring bidders to have supplied sports goods worth at least Rs. 6 crores to Chhattisgarh State agencies in the preceding three financial years was held to lack a rational nexus with the object of procuring sports kits through fair competition. The Court stated that while the State may prescribe tender conditions, they must not be arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or disconnected from the public purpose. By limiting eligibility to past supplies made only to local State agencies, the condition excluded otherwise qualified suppliers with comparable experience elsewhere and created an artificial barrier to participation. The restriction was therefore treated as unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 18:36:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900037" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 1403 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468418</link>
      <description>A tender eligibility requiring bidders to have supplied sports goods worth at least Rs. 6 crores to Chhattisgarh State agencies in the preceding three financial years was held to lack a rational nexus with the object of procuring sports kits through fair competition. The Court stated that while the State may prescribe tender conditions, they must not be arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or disconnected from the public purpose. By limiting eligibility to past supplies made only to local State agencies, the condition excluded otherwise qualified suppliers with comparable experience elsewhere and created an artificial barrier to participation. The restriction was therefore treated as unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468418</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>