Delhi HC Sets Aside Disqualification Of Bid For Arbitration Centre Work Over 'Hyper-Technical' Objections

The Delhi High Court has set aside the disqualification of a company's technical bid for interior and fit-out work at the India International Arbitration Centre (IIAC), holding that “hyper-technical” objections relating to solvency certificates cannot defeat the objective of a fair and competitive tender process.

A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan observed that the exclusion of bidders on a “myopic view or on hyper-technical grounds” would undermine the very purpose of public tendering, which is to maximise public value through a fair, transparent and competitive process.

The case concerned a tender floated by NBCC Services Limited for interior and fit-out works at the India International Arbitration Centre at the World Trade Centre in New Delhi.

Sapphire Media Limited's technical bid was disqualified on March 28, 2026 for allegedly failing to meet the eligibility criteria, with the dispute centring on the solvency certificates submitted by it.

Under the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), bidders were required to submit a bank solvency certificate amounting to at least 40% of the estimated project cost, issued within six months from the original last date of submission of bids.

The petitioner had initially submitted solvency certificates issued by Axis Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank. NBCC later sought clarifications, stating that the certificates were beyond the prescribed six-month period or issued in names connected to other entities. In response, the petitioner submitted revised certificates from Kotak Mahindra Bank and Punjab National Bank (PNB).

NBCC defended the disqualification before the Court by arguing that the PNB certificate could not be accepted because it was a “new document” not uploaded with the original bid.

Rejecting these objections, the High Court held that the tender conditions as well as the clarification email issued by NBCC were vague and did not specifically require the bidder to demonstrate solvency for a particular period.

The Court further observed that once NBCC itself had invited the bidder to furnish revised solvency certificates, it could not reject the PNB certificate merely because it was a fresh document, especially when it admittedly satisfied the tender conditions.

“Such hyper-technical objections to reject the bidder, in the opinion of this Court, defeats the very objective of a tender process which is to encourage maximum participation in a fair manner. It has consistently been emphasised that the chief objective of a tender process is maximization of public value through a fair, transparent and competitive tender process,” the Court observed.

Holding the disqualification to be unsustainable, the Court set it aside and directed NBCC to consider the petitioner's bid in terms of the NIT conditions and, thereafter, take an appropriate decision on awarding the tender.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vikas Singh with Advocates Varun Singh, Deepika Kalia, Sudeep Chandra, Kajal Gupta, Deepashu Shakargaye, Urvashi Chauhan and Khushi.

For Respondents: Advocates N Prabhakar, Uday Sharma and Shailesh Sharma for NBCC; Advocates Nakul Sehgal and Prem Kandpal along with authorised representative of Respondent No. 2.