Disposed¶43

M/S Yamuna Enterprises v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Delhi HC1 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/3808/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 3808/2026 (CM APPL. 18651/2026), decided 01.04.2026 by V. Kameswar Rao J. (oral) with Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora J.; Yamuna Enterprises v. Delhi Development Authority; DDA tender disqualification; net worth certificate based on audited accounts FY 2024-25; NIT No. 14/PDKP/DDA/2025-26 Poorv Delhi Khel Parisar; strict compliance with NIT eligibility criteria; unequal treatment of bidders alleged; petition disposed of on recording DDA's stand; point on other six/seven tenders left open.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petition and pending application disposed of by recording the respondents' stand that DDA shall strictly follow the NIT terms (net worth certificate as per audited accounts for FY 2024-25). ¶43

M/S Yamuna Enterprises Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the petitioner's tender (Sr. No. 7, NIT No. 14/PDKP/DDA/2025-26, Poorv Delhi Khel Parisar) for want of a net worth certificate based on the audited accounts of the relevant financial year 2024-25 was sustainable, given the allegation that other bidders who had not fulfilled the stipulation were accepted by DDA. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

Insofar as the impugned tender is concerned, the Court recorded the stand of respondent/DDA that it shall strictly follow the terms of the NIT, meaning the net worth certificate should be as per the audited accounts for the relevant Financial Year 2024-25.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

By taking the submission/stand of the respondents on record, the Court disposed of the writ petition and the pending application.

¶43

Key takeaways

The Court expressly declined to express any view on counsel's submission that similar treatment should be extended to the other tenders, leaving that point open.obiter¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by M/s Yamuna Enterprises challenging eight identical DDA tenders (2025-26) and seeking their quashing and re-tendering; consideration confined to the 7th tender (NIT No. 14/PDKP/DDA/2025-26, Poorv Delhi Khel Parisar) as the technical bids for the other seven tenders were unopened. Ground urged: rejection of the petitioner's bid for not filing a net worth certificate based on the audited accounts of the relevant financial year 2024-25, while other bidders who had not fulfilled the stipulation were allegedly accepted. DDA's stand, placed on record through affidavit, was that certificates not specifically stating they were based on audited accounts would not strictly accord with the NIT provisions, and that DDA shall strictly follow the NIT terms, i.e., the net worth certificate must be as per audited accounts for FY 2024-25. Recording this stand, the Court disposed of the petition and the pending application, expressly saying nothing on whether similar treatment should extend to the other tenders.

¶1

$~67

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision : 01.04.2026

¶4

- W.P.(C) 3808/2026 CM APPL. 18651/2026

¶5

M/S YAMUNA ENTERPRISES

¶6

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Through: Ms. Kritika Gupta, Adv.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶13

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. ( ORAL )

¶14

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following

¶15

prayers:-

¶16

“(I) Issue a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature quashing the following eight identical (8 identical) IMPUGNED-TENDERS together with respective tender-process (detailed in Sr. No. 1 to 8 of table in Para 5.2 of writ-petition), i.e. ImpugnedTenders namely,-

¶17

(a) 1^st Impugned TenderNIT No. 05/SFSC/DDA/2025-26 for Siri Fort Sports Complex, New Delhi (Annexure P-4) (b) 2^nd Impugned Tender - NIT No.

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:0 2.04.2026 12:29:32

¶20

W.P.(C) 3808/2026 Page 1 of 4

¶21

IO/RSC/DDA/2025-26 for Rohini Sports Complex, Sector-14, Rohini, New Delhi (Annexure P-5) (e) 3^rd Impugned-Tender - NIT No. 04/MDCSC/DDA/2025-26 for Major Dhyan Chand Sports Complex (Annexure P-6) (d) 4^th Impugned-Tender - NIT No 05/RSKP/DDA/2025-26 for Rashtriya Swabhimaan Khel Parisa (Annexure P-7) (e) 5^th Impugned-Tender - NIT No. 06/PVSC/DDA/2025-26 for Paschim Vihar Sports Complex (Annexure P-8) (f) 6^th Impugned-Tender - NIT No. 09/HNSC/DDA/2025-26 for HariNagar Sports Complex, Delh (Annexure P-9) (g) 7^th Impugned-Tender - NIT No. 14/PDKP/DDA/2025-26 for Poorv Delhi Khel Parisar (Annexure P-10)

¶22

(h) 8^th Impugned-Tender - NIT No. 02/DSC/DDA/2025-26 for Dwarka Sports Complex, New Delhi (Annexure P-11)

¶23

(II) Issue writ of MANDAMUS and/or any other writ, order or direction in the like nature directing respondent/DDA to re-tender the works under 'Impugned-Tenders' (supra) after clarifying the terms & conditions and eligibility criteria.

¶24

(III) Award costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.”

¶25

On 25.03.2026, we had passed the following order:-

¶26

“1. The learned counsel for the respondents has filed an additional short affidavit on behalf of the respondents i.e., DDA, which is taken on record. The same is scanned and made part of the present writ petition.

¶27

2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 3. It is made clear and so stated by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner that this writ petition lays challenge to the disqualification of the petitioner qua

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:0 2.04.2026 12:29:32

¶30

W.P.(C) 3808/2026 Page 2 of 4

¶31

Tender@ Sr. No. 7 i.e. NIT No. 14/PDKP/DDA/202526 for Poorv Delhi Khel Parisar.

¶32

4. We may clarify that the technical bids of the petitioner with regard to other seven tenders have not been opened, yet.

¶33

5. At request of the learned counsel for the respondents to take instructions, renotify on 01.04.2026.”

¶34

The aforesaid order was passed in the context that the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in respect of 08 tenders but the fact as represented by the counsel for the respondents is that only 01 tender i.e., 7^th impugned tender with regard to Poorv Delhi Khel Parishar was opened, we are limiting our consideration to the issue regarding the 7^th tender only.

¶35

One of the grounds urged by Mr. Rajesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have rejected the tender of the petitioner on the ground that it has not filed the net worth certificate based on the audited accounts of relevant financial year i.e., 2024-25. The submission of Mr. Gupta is that there are other bidders, who have not fulfilled the stipulation but their bids have been accepted by the respondent/DDA.

¶36

On this, the learned counsel for the respondents has taken instructions and also filed an affidavit today in Court, which we take on record.

¶37

The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that though the net worth certificates submitted by the tenderers, does not specifically state that the said certificate is based on audited accounts, but the Chartered Accountant having verified the accounts, the same have been accepted. She states that the said certificates would not be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the NIT. She highlight the stand of the DDA in paragraph 4 of

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:0 2.04.2026 12:29:32

¶40

W.P.(C) 3808/2026 Page 3 of 4

¶41

the affidavit.

¶42

On this, Mr. Gupta would submit that similar should be the position in respect of other tenders.

¶43

We say nothing on the said submission of Mr. Gupta. Suffice to state insofar as the impugned tender is concerned, the stand of the respondent/DDA is that they shall strictly follow terms of the NIT, which means the net worth certificate should be as per the audited accounts for the relevant Financial Year 2024-25. By taking the submission/stand of the respondents on record, we dispose of this petition and the pending application.

¶44

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶45

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶46

APRIL 1, 2026 /sr

¶47

Signature Not Verified

¶48

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:0 2.04.2026 12:29:32

¶49

W.P.(C) 3808/2026 Page 4 of 4

M/S Yamuna Enterprises v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Yamuna Enterprises v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Bachan Singh Vs Consolidation Officer

Manas Kumar Dubey & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Anju Tanwar Vs Lawyers Chambers Allotment Committee & Ors.

Sharwan Kumar Vigmal Vs Gerneral Manager (Nw-Ii) (Appointing Authority) State Bank of India

Gautam Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajubhai Kanti Lal Patel Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gyan Chand Vs Delhi Cantonment Board and Ors.

Union of India and Others Vs Lt Col Ajay Kumar Retd

Ajit Kumar Singh through Smt. Poonam Singh Wife and Pairokar Vs Union of India and Ors.

K.S. Oils Limited Vs Shivang Edibles Oils Limited and Anr. & Anr.

Union of India and Ors. Vs 684783 Ex Hfo Brij Kishor Tripathi

Brij Lal and Sons Vs Union of India

Vivek Kumar Rai Vs Union of India & Ors.