Madras High Court
Ram Taranga Solutions Private Limited vs Nlc India Limited on 4 November, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A No. 1979 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-11-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A No. 1979 of 2025
AND
CMP.No.14963 of 2025
Ram Taranga Solutions Private Limited
Rep by its Managing Director,
Ravishankar Somashekhar,
No.20, Ground Floor, 3rd Main Road,
11 Block, 2nd Stage, BDA Layout,
Naagarabhavi, Bengaluru,
Karnataka-560072. ..Appellant
Vs
NLC India Limited
Represented by its Secretary,
No.135, EVR Periyar High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai-600010 ..Respondent
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the order
dated 25.02.2025 passed in W.P.No. 38829 of 2024.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 01:40:12 pm )
W.A No. 1979 of 2025
For Appellant: Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel
For M/s. Chandini, Pradeep kumar
Assisted by Mhanasha Devi. K.R.
For Respondent : Mr. Kishore Balasubramanian
JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 25.02.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 38829 of 2024. By the said
order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant
herein, challenging the order passed by the respondent, whereby the
appellant/writ petitioner was blacklisted from participating in future tenders
floated by the respondent and its subsidiaries for a period of two years.
2. The respondent issued a tender notification inviting bids from eligible
persons for setting up Wind Power Projects on a Pan-India basis with operation
and maintenance for ten years. The appellant/petitioner submitted its bid along
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 01:40:12 pm )
with the documents prescribed under the tender notification. The appellant also
furnished a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.1,91,84,000/- (Rupees One Crore
Ninety One Lakhs and Eighty Four Thousand Only), which was mandatory as
per the conditions of the tender notification.
3. The respondent, having noticed certain discrepancies in the bank
guarantee, addressed a communication to the Federal Bank Limited seeking
clarification. In response, the Federal Bank stated that both M/s. Ampolt India
Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru, and the subject bank guarantee did not belong
to their bank, and that the bank was not responsible for the said guarantee.
Further, the beneficiary’s bank, State Bank of India, also informed that they had
not received any bank guarantee confirmation through SFMS.
4. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to M/s. Ampolt
Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. on 25.11.2023. The appellant replied on 01.12.2023,
stating that one Ashok, known to the management of Ampolt, represented that
one Varadharajan from Joy Enterprises could arrange a bid guarantee. To secure
the said guarantee, Ampolt arranged for payment of 10% towards margin money,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 01:40:12 pm )
1% towards bank charges, and 1% commission for Joy Enterprises to arrange the
bid guarantee. After receipt of these funds, a bid guarantee dated 07.06.2023 for
the said amount, valid up to 06.06.2024, was furnished in favour of the
respondent. The management of Ampolt claimed it had no reason to believe that
the bid guarantee furnished by Varadharajan was not genuine, as it was issued in
line with industry practice.
5. Subsequently, Ampolt learnt that the Federal Bank denied issuing the
bank guarantee, and it came to light that Varadharajan and Ashok had defrauded
Ampolt by furnishing a fake bank guarantee. Immediately thereafter, a complaint
was lodged with the Karnataka Police regarding the said fraud.
6. The appellant further contended that Clause 3.9.1(vii) of the tender
document could not have been invoked, as it applied only to cases involving the
furnishing of false or bogus certificates, and the said clause did not envisage a
two-year ban. Hence, any action by the respondent under the said clause would
be unsustainable. The appellant asserted that it was itself the victim of fraud, and
therefore, any punitive action would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 01:40:12 pm )
Constitution of India. Accordingly, it requested the respondent not to take any
coercive action. However, after considering the appellant’s response, the
respondent passed an order blacklisting the appellant for two years. The writ
petition challenging the said order was dismissed by the learned Single Judge,
giving rise to the present appeal.
7. Mr. P. S. Raman, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, submitted
that Clause 3.9.1 (vii) of the tender document provides for forfeiture of the bank
guarantee and banning of a bidder for two years in the event of breach of
conditions enumerated therein, one such being the furnishing of false or bogus
certificates. In the present case, the appellant had not furnished any false or
bogus certificate, but was alleged to have submitted a fabricated bank guarantee.
Therefore, invocation of the said clause and the consequent order of blacklisting,
it was argued, are without authority of law.
8. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that even assuming
Clause 3.30 which provides for blacklisting for two years in cases of furnishing
forged documents were to apply, such furnishing must be willful. The appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 01:40:12 pm )
having been defrauded, the act was not willful, and therefore, the learned Single
Judge erred in not interfering with the blacklisting order. On these grounds, it
was contended that the writ appeal deserves to be allowed.
9. In reply, Mr. Kishore Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the
respondent, submitted that a fabricated bank guarantee was indeed furnished by
the appellant along with the bid, and having admitted that fact, the appellant
cannot contend that the furnishing of the same was not willful. The appellant,
being the principal, is responsible for the acts of its agents. He further contended
that the tender documents empower the respondent to blacklist a bidder for two
years under Clause 3.30, and when the source of power is traceable to that
clause, mere wrong citation of Clause 3.9 would not vitiate the order of
blacklisting.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that Clause
3.30 can be invoked if fabricated documents are furnished; it is not confined to
willful acts alone. Whether the furnishing of such documents was willful cannot
be determined by the respondent or this Court it can only be adjudicated before
an appropriate forum. The learned Single Judge, having considered all relevant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 01:40:12 pm )
aspects in the proper perspective, rightly dismissed the writ petition, and the
order warrants no interference.
11. The submissions of the learned counsel on both sides and the materials
placed on record have been duly considered.
12. Admittedly, the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant along with
its bid was a fabricated document. The appellant’s own explanation was that two
individuals had defrauded it after collecting a commission, and that it was
unaware of the fabrication at the time of submission. Clause 3.9.(ii) of the tender
document empowers the respondent to forfeit the bank guarantee and ban the
bidder for a period of two years for breach of the conditions enumerated therein,
including the furnishing of forged or bogus certificates. Even if this clause were
not strictly applicable, Clause 3.30 specifically provides for disqualification and
banning of the bidder for two years for acts such as willful suppression of facts,
furnishing of wrong information, or use of manipulated/forged documents or
other unfair means.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 01:40:12 pm )
13. A plain reading of the said clause indicates that it is sufficient to
invoke it if forged documents are furnished, and the word “willful” qualifies only
the act of suppression of facts. Even assuming otherwise, the appellant, being the
principal who engaged those individuals to procure the bank guarantee, is
vicariously responsible for their acts. Hence, the furnishing of a fabricated bank
guarantee cannot be said to be unintentional or non-willful.
14. A bank guarantee is normally issued against security such as property,
cash, or other assets. It represents a promise by a bank to discharge the financial
obligation of a customer if the latter fails to fulfil a contract. Without delving into
whether the appellant was defrauded by the said two persons, which is under
investigation, the respondent was justified in invoking Clause 3.30 of the tender
document. The mere wrong mention or omission of the specific clause in the
show-cause notice or order does not vitiate the order, provided the source of
power for the action is traceable to the governing document.
15. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 01:40:12 pm )
blacklisting entails civil consequences, and hence, the respondent ought to have
passed a speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing. However, the
record shows that such opportunity was indeed provided.
16. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that a show-cause notice
was issued, a response was received, and the appellant admitted that the bank
guarantee was fabricated. The respondent, after considering the explanation and
finding it unsatisfactory, proceeded to blacklist the appellant. Therefore, the
contention that the order is non-speaking is untenable. The order clearly reflects
consideration of the materials and reasons for the decision, and thus suffers from
no illegality or infirmity.
17. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
view that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant
interference. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 01:40:12 pm )
18. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. There shall be no order as to
costs. The respondent shall, however, consider any future bids submitted by the
appellant or its subsidiaries in tenders, on their own merits and in accordance
with law, and shall not reject such bids merely on the ground of the earlier
blacklisting order.
(R.S.K. J.,) (H.C. J.,)
04.11.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 01:40:12 pm )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
ak
04.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 01:40:12 pm )
