Smc Infrastructures Private Limited vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Anr

$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 03.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010381792026
+ W.P.(C) 11866/2026 CM APPLs. 59133/2026, 59134/2026
REVIEW PET. 397/2026
SMC INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Dhawan, Mr. Vishesh
Issar, Mr. Krishna Parkhani, Mr.
Himanshu Chakravarty, Ms. Vaishali
Singh, Mr. Vardan Sharma and Mr.
Procheto Das, Advocates

versus

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC for MCD with
Mr. Vaibhav Tripathi, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. ( ORAL )

CM APPL. 59134/2026 (for exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
REVIEW PET. 397/2026
3. This is a review petition filed by the petitioner/applicant with the
following prayers:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.09.2026
17:02:53
W.P.(C) 11866/2026 Page 1 of 5

“A. Allow the present Review Petition and review the Judgment
and Order dated 20.08.2026 passed by this Hon'ble Com1 in
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11866 of2026;
B. Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
necessary in the interest of justice.”

4. In effect, the petitioner is seeking review of the order dated
20.08.2026 whereby this Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the
petitioner.
5. The submission of Ms. Vaishali, learned counsel for the review
petitioner is primarily that this Court had in paragraph 12, 14 and 18 rightly
taken the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that three
bidders were excluded on the same grounds. Hence, the petitioner has thus
maintained a consistent approach which weighed with this Court to dismiss
the writ petition by relying upon the judgment in the case of Central
Coalfields Limited and Another v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium)
and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 622 .

6. That apart it is her submission that the judgment in the case of
Central Coalfields Limited (supra) was considered by this Court in the case
of Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited v. Union of India & Anr., 2026:
DHC: 5322-DB , wherein, this Court in paragraph 26, in identical facts
rejected the reliance placed by the respondents therein on the said judgment
i.e., Central Coalfields Limited (supra) .
7. She says that there is an error apparent on face of the order dated
20.08.2026, which requires review. We are unable to agree with the
submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/review petitioner
for the simple reason that while considering an application filed by the
respondents seeking modification of order dated 20.08.2026; we had clearly
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.09.2026
17:02:53
W.P.(C) 11866/2026 Page 2 of 5

directed in terms of order dated 25.08.2026 that a physical copy of the bank
guarantee was required to be submitted before 03:00 PM on 07.08.2026, the
said directive is required to be followed. Having failed to adhere to the said
stipulation, which resulted in its exclusion, the impugned action of the
respondents cannot be faulted. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated
20.08.2026 are paragraphs 17,18 and 19 which we reproduce as under:
“17. No doubt, in the representation submitted by the petitioner
at 08.08.2026 at 03:14 PM, i.e., after expiry of 24 hours from
1500 hours of 07.08.2026, it is stated that due to unprecedented
heavy downpours across the Delhi NCR on 07.08.2026
resulting in severe water logging and extreme traffic gridlocks,
the representative was physically prevented from reaching the
office prior to 1500 hours. However, the fact remains whether
an attempt was made by the representative on 07.08.2026
before/after 1500 hours is not borne out from the affidavit. Mr.
Manish Kumar Doshi does not disclose the name of the officer
whom he had supposedly met at the office of the respondent
no.2. No attempt was made by the Maharashtra office of the
petitioner to get in touch with the concerned officer of the
respondent requesting acceptance of the Bank Guarantee on
07.08.2026 immediately on the representative reaching the
office of the respondent no. 2.
18. Mr. Jain has submitted that the soft copy of the Bank
Guarantee having already been uploaded along with tender at
1445 hours, the submission of the physical copy of the Bank
Guarantee is not a mandatory/material requirement, and
cannot be the reason to disqualify/exclude the petitioner from
consideration. Though the said submission looks appealing on
a first blush, the fact remains that there is a clear stipulation in
the tender contemplating deposit of the physical Bank
Guarantee on or before 1500 hours on 07.08.2026.
Concedingly, the said stipulation has not been adhered to by
the petitioner. That apart, it is the submission of Mr. Sannu that
three more bidders were excluded on the same/related grounds.
If that be so, this is not a case of pick and choose by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.09.2026
17:02:53
W.P.(C) 11866/2026 Page 3 of 5

respondents. We fail to understand as to why no attempt was
made by the petitioner to set out to deposit the physical copy of
the bank guarantee at 11.00 AM, when it was received at Delhi,
instead of waiting close to 03.00 PM.
19. Having failed to deposit the physical copy of the Bank
Guarantee on or before the stipulated time of 1500 hours on
07.08.2026, the petitioner has not adhered to the express
conditions of the NIT, resulting in its exclusion. The Supreme
Court in the judgment relied upon by Mr. Sannu i.e., Central
Coalfields Limited (supra) has in paragraphs 54 and 55 held as
under:-
“54. In this context, and in the present times, it is
important to note that the World Bank has ranked
India extremely low in matters relating to enforcement
of contracts and ease of doing business. Out of 189
countries worldwide, India is ranked 178 in the matter
of enforcement of contracts and 130 in the matter of
ease of doing business
[<www.doingbusiness.org/rankings> (World Bank
Group).]. One of the possible reasons for this
extremely low ranking given to our country is the
failure of all parties concerned in strictly adhering to
the terms of documents such as NIT and the GTC.
Insofar as the present case is concerned, NIT was
floated on 5-8-2015 and one year later, we are still
struggling with the issue of acceptance of a bank
guarantee for a contract of about Rs 2000 crores —
certainly not a small sum.
55. On the basis of the available case law, we are of
the view that since CCL had not relaxed or deviated
from the requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee in
the prescribed format, insofar as the present appeals
are concerned every bidder was obliged to adhere to
the prescribed format of the bank guarantee.
Consequently, the failure of JVC to furnish the bank
guarantee in the prescribed format was sufficient
reason for CCL to reject its bid.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.09.2026
17:02:53
W.P.(C) 11866/2026 Page 4 of 5

8. We had also in the order dated 25.08.2026, considered an application
filed by the respondents and we had dealt with the submission advanced by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the same shall have bearing on the
conclusion in paragraph 24, as contested by the counsel for the respondent.
We had noted the contentions of the parties and come to a conclusion that
the same has no bearing on the final conclusion drawn by us and thereby
disposed of the application. That being the finding, there is no error apparent
on the face of the order dated 20.08.2026. The review petition being without
any merit is dismissed.
9. The pending applications are also dismissed as having become
infructuous.


V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
SEPTEMBER 03, 2026/ rt



Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.09.2026
17:02:53
W.P.(C) 11866/2026 Page 5 of 5