Dismissed

M/S Canwork Amenities Private Limited v. Union of India

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2026WA/2151/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed a writ appeal challenging the technical disqualification of the appellant in a railway tender for linen distribution services. The appellant failed to submit a liquidity certificate in the prescribed format, instead providing a solvency certificate with a caveat. The Court upheld the Single Judge's finding of non-compliance, held no Article 226 interference was warranted, and noted the Railway's representation would be independently considered.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of; Railway authorities to independently consider appellant's representation uninfluenced by judicial decisions

M/S Canwork Amenities Private Limited Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:50322-DB WA No. 2151 of 2026

¶4

CNR: KAHC010648102026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO. 2151 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

M/S CANWORK AMENITIES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT

¶13

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2/110 A, KARIPPAYI ROAD RAJAGIRI P.O., KALAMASSERY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶14

Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

KERALA - 683 104 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY

¶16

SRI ANTONY THARU

¶17

…APPELLANT

¶18

(BY SRI BAPAT SAMPATH VINAYAKA RAO., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS RAILWAY BOARD RAIL BHAVAN

NEW DELHI - 110 001

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:50322-DB WA No. 2151 of 2026

¶25

CNR: KAHC010648102026

¶26

THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY RAIL SADAN GADAG ROAD HUBBALLI - 580 020

¶27

THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER BENGALURU DIVISION SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BENGALURU - 560 023

¶28

THE SENIOR DIVISION MECHANICAL ENGINEER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BENGALURU DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 023

¶29

THE TENDER COMMITTEE SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BENGALURU DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 023

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI ARVIND K. KAMATH, ASGI A/W SRI VINAY VENUGOPAL, CGC)

¶32

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW W.P. NO.28592/2026 AND QUASH THE TECHNICAL DISQUALIFICATION OF THE APPELLANT IN GeM BiD NO.GEM/2026/B/7607219 DATED 05/06/2026 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09/09/2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.28592/2026 (GM-TEN) AND ETC.

¶33

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:50322-DB WA No. 2151 of 2026

¶37

CNR: KAHC010648102026

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶41

The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 09.09.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.28592/2026 (GM-TEN). The appellant filed the said petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 [ the Railways ] to reconsider the rejection of the appellant’s technical bid in evaluation of GEM Bid No.GEM/2026/B/7607219 dated 05.06.2026.

¶42

The Railways uploaded a tender through the GEM portal for providing "Linen Distribution Services in AC Coaches of Primary Trains at YPR Coaching Depot, Bengaluru Division, for a period of (Four) 04 years on Manpower Basis", for a total value of `45,53,71,361/-. The appellant participated in the said bid, but was disqualified on two grounds. First, that the power of attorney submitted by the bidder is invalid and unenforceable; and second,

¶43

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:50322-DB WA No. 2151 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

CNR: KAHC010648102026

¶46

that the bidder has failed to qualify the technical eligibility conditions of "T2 liquidity ".

¶47

As to the power of attorney, the objection is that it was insufficiently stamped, which the appellant says is cured. Stamping of a document is clearly a curable defect. Prima facie, we cannot accept that it would raise a doubt as to the authority of the person furnishing and signing the bid. The principal issue is the appellant's failure to comply with the technical condition of furnishing "T2 liquidity".

¶48

The tender conditions required the appellant to either furnish its financial statements evidencing sufficient liquidity for performing the contract or a liquidity certificate from the bank in the specified format. The said certificate essentially requires the bank to certify that "the appellant was a reputed company with a good financial standing". And second, that if the contract was awarded, the bank would be willing to provide an overdraft facility to the specified extent to meet the working capital requirements and costs. The appellant did not furnish the certificate in the aforesaid format. It submitted a solvency certificate whereby the bank certified that the

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:50322-DB WA No. 2151 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

CNR: KAHC010648102026

¶52

appellant was "respectable and can be treated as good up to a sum of `2,27,68,600/- (Rupees Two Crore Twenty Seven Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand and Six Hundred only)”. The learned Single Judge found that the certificate did not comply with the format specified in the tender conditions. The appellant challenges the same on the ground that the certificate of subsistence had met with the said condition.

¶53

We cannot fault the learned Single Judge's decision that the certificate did not comply with the prescribed format. The purpose of requiring such a certificate of solvency was to assure the department that the necessary working capital would be made available to the bidder. However, instead, the bank has issued a solvency certificate with a caveat that the information was "without any risk and responsibility".

¶54

It is relevant to note that after the Railways rejected the technical bid on a query raised, the bank issued the certificate directly in the required format.

¶55

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:50322-DB WA No. 2151 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

CNR: KAHC010648102026

¶58

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the aforesaid defect is curable and the same has since been cured. He submits that the appellant ought not to be excluded from the bid on that basis.

¶59

Mr Arvind K Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the Railways, points out that the appellant has already made a representation in this regard which is pending consideration.

¶60

We find no infirmity in the impugned order in finding that the certificate initially furnished by the appellant did not comply with the tender conditions. No interference in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is warranted.

¶61

The issue is whether the Railways consider it apposite to permit curing of the said deficiency or consider it as incapable of rectification at this stage. This discretion rests with the Railways. The learned ASG submits that the representation made by the appellant would be independently considered uninfluenced by the decision of the learned Single Judge or this Court.

¶62

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:50322-DB WA No. 2151 of 2026

¶65

CNR: KAHC010648102026

¶66

The Railways are bound down to the said statement.

¶67

The present appeal is dismissed.

¶68

The pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed

¶69

¶70

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶71

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶72

AHB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16

M/S Canwork Amenities Private Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Canwork Amenities Private Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases