Legal Analysis: Rr Constructions and Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. v. Gayatri Ventures and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 514

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar & Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Date of Decision: May 20, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 37099 of 2025 against the judgment of the High Court.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant (an out-of-State bidder) participated in a tender issued by the Water Resources Department. The tender document provided that Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) could be submitted in various forms, including “Approved Interest Bearing Security” (Clause 2.13(a)(iv)) or “Bank Draft” (Clause 2.13(a)(xiii)). For out-of-State bidders, Clause 2.13(b) stated that they “may submit” EMD in the form of a bank draft. The appellant submitted a Fixed Deposit (FD) in the name of the Tendering Authority. The Tendering Authority initially qualified the appellant, but the High Court disqualified him, holding that a DD was mandatory for out-of-State bidders. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, holding that the word “may” in Clauses 2.13(b) and 2.15 indicates that the DD was only an option, not a mandatory condition. The FD was an “Approved Interest Bearing Security” under Clause 2.13(a)(iv). The Court affirmed the appellant’s qualification on Envelope A, but left open the issue of subsequent disqualification on Envelope B (relating to a pre‑bid qualification certificate), granting the appellant 48 hours to represent against that disqualification.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Rr Constructions and Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. v. Gayatri Ventures and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 514

Civil Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 37099 of 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar & Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Date of Decision: May 20, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Judgment of the High Court disqualifying the appellant on the ground that EMD was not submitted by way of Demand Draft (DD) as allegedly mandatory for out-of-State bidders.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of High Courts), Article 136 (special leave to appeal).

• Tender Law Principles – Interpretation of tender documents; use of word “may” indicates option, not compulsion; strict compliance with mandatory conditions, but optional conditions cannot be treated as mandatory.

• Specific Clauses of Tender Document (Annexure P2) – Clause 2.13(a)(iv) (Approved Interest Bearing Security as a form of EMD), Clause 2.13(a)(xiii) (Bank Draft in case of tenderers of other States), Clause 2.13(b) (out-of-State tenderers “may submit” EMD in the form of bank draft as specified), Clause 2.15 (“Earnest Money for Tenders from other Stat

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.