Kartick Chandra Das A.K.A. M/S Kartick Chandra Das vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Facts
The petitioner, Kartick Chandra Das, submitted a bid for a tender in the name "Kartick Chandra Das". The respondent rejected the bid because the Registration Certificate issued by the Registrar of Firms, West Bengal, was in the name "M/s. Kartick Chandra Das". The petitioner's partnership firm, registered on June 29, 2010, with partners Kartick Chandra Das and Panchanan Das, was indeed named "M/s. Kartick Chandra Das". The petitioner argued that the inclusion of "M/s." in the registration certificate was an error and submitted a notarized affidavit to this effect. The tender documents required the submission of registration documents for partnership firms. The matter was referred to a Chief Engineer for review.
Held
The Court held that the Chief Engineer should decide on the eligibility of the writ petitioner, taking into account the discrepancy in the name. The Court directed the Chief Engineer to consider whether the PAN and GST of "Kartick Chandra Das" belong to the individual or the partnership firm "M/s. Kartick Chandra Das". Additionally, the Chief Engineer was to determine if the experience certificates submitted under the name "Kartick Chandra Das" pertain to the firm "M/s. Kartick Chandra Das" or an individual. The Court acknowledged that the error in omitting "M/s." might be relevant for tax laws and experience purposes but focused on the technical disqualification. The Chief Engineer was instructed to make a decision within ten days, considering all documents submitted by the petitioner, and the petitioner was given 72 hours to submit additional documents.
Key Issues
1. Whether the description of the tenderer as "Kartick Chandra Das" should be read as synonymous with "M/s. Kartick Chandra Das" for the purpose of tender evaluation, considering the petitioner's partnership firm is registered as "M/s. Kartick Chandra Das"? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the difference in name was a minor clerical error and that the PAN and GST numbers provided belonged to the partnership firm. They relied on the principle that tender conditions should be interpreted to distinguish between essential and non-essential conditions, citing judgments from the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of tender documents. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the State. However, the rejection of the bid was based on the discrepancy between the name used in the tender submission and the name in the firm's registration certificate.
Sections Cited
Clause 4.2C(II)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
17-01-2022 ……for the Petitioners.
Mr. Samrat Sen, Ms. Manali Ali … for the State.
The short question that comes for consideration in the instant writ petition is as to whether the description of the tenderer Kartick Chandra Das must be and should be read as synonymous to the expression “M/s. Kartick Chandra Das”.
The writ petitioner’s bid for “Reconstruction, Remodeling and Improvement of Embankment” etc. for NIT dated September 6, 2016 was rejected by the respondent for the name “Kartick Chandra Das” being different from the name of the partnership firm in the Registration Certificate issued by the Registrar of Firms.
The writ petitioner submi
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.