RR Constructions and Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. v. Gayatri Ventures 2026 INSC 514
Tender Matters - No legal aspects discussed in this judgment - In facts of this case, the Supreme Court held that the tender condition permitting out‑of‑State bidders to furnish Earnest Money Deposit by demand draft was optional and not mandatory, and that a fixed deposit made in favour of the tendering authority qualified as “Approved Interest Bearing Security” under the NIT.
Case Info
Extracted Case Information
Case name: RR Constructions and Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. v. Gayatri Ventures and Others
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 514
Coram:
- Justice Sanjay Kumar
- Justice K. Vinod Chandran (author of the judgment)
Judgment date: 20 May 2026 (NEW DELHI; MAY 20, 2026.)
Caselaws and Citations
No prior case law or judicial precedents are cited or discussed in the extracted text. The High Court judgment is referred to descriptively (as the “impugned judgment” and a prior judgment “on identical conditions”) but without any reported citation or case name.
Statutes / Laws Referred
The decision turns entirely on the tender conditions in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), particularly:
- Clause 2.13(a)(iv): “Approved Interest Bearing Security”
- Clause 2.13(a)(xiii): “Bank Draft of State Bank of India or scheduled Banks in case of tenderers of other States”
- Clause 2.13(b): Relaxing conditions for out-of-State bidders, stating they “may submit” EMD by bank draft
- Clause 2.15: “Earnest Money for Tenders from other State” (procedure for renewal/encashment of DD)
- Clause 2.16: EMD validity for not less than 18 months
Three‑Sentence Brief Summary
The Supreme Court held that the tender condition permitting out‑of‑State bidders to furnish Earnest Money Deposit by demand draft was optional and not mandatory, and that a fixed deposit made in favour of the tendering authority qualified as “Approved Interest Bearing Security” under the NIT. Consequently, it set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the appellant’s qualification at the stage of opening Envelope A, holding that the disqualification based solely on submission of an FD was unsustainable. On the subsequent disqualification at Envelope B stage, the Court declined to rule on merits, instead allowing the appellant to approach the Tendering Authority within 48 hours of uploading of the judgment to contest that disqualification, while expressly making no observations on the validity of Envelope B evaluation.