Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. It is submitted that the above scanned document, indisputably shows the signatures of one Shri Pradeep Sharma along with the rubber stamp, whereas this very document handed over in court, along with the horizontal sheets, shows three rubber stamps and two signatures on the side. Admittedly, two rubber stamps and two signatures are missing. The document handed over in court is reproduced below:

20. To explain this, Mr. Jain, firstly submits that the first document referred to as Document 'A' is what was submitted by respondent No. 2, whereas the one which has been scanned subsequently, referred to as Document 'B', is the final document which has been handed over in the Court and forms part of the contract dated 09.04.2019. It is, thus, submitted that the allegations made with regard to stamps being missing or documents accepted from the backdoor are false and scandalous as respondent No.1 is a Public Sector Undertaking. Mr. Jain also relies upon the format of payment schedule, which was part of the tender document and submits that although this format was filed as blank, however, the schedule No.1 of this document, was filed with the final bid and it is for this reason that the three layer Scrutinizing Committee declared the bid of respondent No. 2 as substantially responsive. Mr. Jain relies on Clause 18.3 which we reproduce below: -