The Supreme Court has held that rigid adherence to the literal terms of a document cannot be insisted upon when compliance is clearly impossible, particularly where the underlying requirement has already been fulfilled.

“Rigid adherence to the letter of a document cannot be countenanced, especially when there is a clear impossibility in compliance of the same.”, a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed, while setting aside the Patna High Court's decision to reject a bidder's offer for a railway infrastructure project over its failure to submit the physical original of a receipt for bid security paid electronically.

The case concerned the Appellant-bidder, whose bid was rejected for not furnishing the original bid-security document as required under the tender conditions, even though the company had deposited the amount through an electronic payment gateway and uploaded the payment receipt.

The Court explained that the requirement to submit an original instrument may serve a legitimate purpose when bid security is furnished through a bank guarantee, demand draft, fixed deposit receipt or banker's cheque. In such cases, the original document may be necessary to establish the government's rights over the instrument.

However, where the amount has already been electronically transferred to the government's account, the position is materially different. The funds are already under the government's control, and the uploaded electronic receipt establishes the payment. Insisting on a physical original in such circumstances would impose a requirement incapable of meaningful compliance.

“We are perfectly in agreement with the contention of the appellant, especially looking at the various forms in which the Bid Security can be furnished; a Bank Guarantee/ Account Payee Demand Draft/Fixed Deposit Receipt/ Banker's Cheque, unless physically furnished to the respondent, there can be no lien exercised on the Bid Security. It is, hence, the stipulation that at the time of application, the scanned copy should be uploaded and later the original should be handed over to the nominated official. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, the money was deposited to the account of the respondents and there is nothing further required to be produced insofar as the epayment made, especially when the digital payment receipt had been uploaded along with the bid document.”, the Court observed.

As a result, the appeal was allowed.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. De, Adv. Ms. Ananya De, Adv. Mr. Pramit Saxena- 1935, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nina R. Nariman, Adv. Ms. Padmja Mishra, Adv. Ms. Jayam Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Kanchan Kumari Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar- 3438, AOR Mr. Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, A.S.G. Ms. Vidushi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Purnendu Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar- 2986, AOR Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Adv.