In Brief
Central Coalfields Limited invited tenders for a major contract and prescribed a specific format for bank guarantee submissions. When the joint venture SLL-SML submitted a bank guarantee in a different format (though allegedly meeting substantive requirements), CCL rejected the bid. The vendor challenged this via writ petition. The High Court initially upheld the rejection, but the Division Bench reversed, holding the format requirement was non-essential and the vendor achieved substantial compliance. The Supreme Court allowed CCL's appeals, holding that where an employer prescribes a particular format for essential documents like bank guarantees without relaxation, strict compliance is mandatory. The court rejected applying flexible "essential versus non-essential" distinctions that favour unsuccessful bidders at the cost of equal treatment, affirming the employer's authority to enforce tender terms consistently across all participants.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.