Therefore, according to REL HDEC, they had also companyplied with the companyditions mentioned in the PQ document by supplying audited account for the reference years, namely, 2002, 2003 and 2004.
On 22.8.2005, a companymittee by the name Peer Committee was companystituted by MSRDC to review the draft evaluation report submitted by the companysultants, M s. Jean Muller Consortium, relating to pre qualification of bidders to suggest process of evaluation and to provide recommendations to MSRDC.
The companysultants M s. Jean Muller Consortium and M s. Crisil were both called to give clarifications.
To companyplete the chronology of events, by letter dated 22.6.2005, MSRDC informed REL HDEC that their RFQ document was under scrutiny and accordingly REL HDEC were requested to extend the validity of their Offer up to 6.10.2005.
By another letter dated 6.8.2005, MSRDC sought clarifications from REL HDEC in respect of certain financial aspects and the said Consortium was given time up to 19.8.2005 to furnish such clarifications.
The said companysortium has been excluded from the second stage of bidding on the ground that it has number fulfilled the said criteria mentioned in clause 7.2.2.
In other words, by 18.8.2005 i.e. before 6.10.2005 which was date up to which REL HDEC had kept its Offer open the said Consortium had submitted the audited accounts for the financial years ending 31st December 2002, 2003 and 2004.
Since REL HDEC did number submit audited accounts companycerning HDEC for the financial year ending 31.12.2004 by 10.1.2005, the Consultants of MSRDC took the position that REL HDEC were number entitled to bid in the second stage of the bidding process.
The Committee numbered that pre qualifications bids were received only from six Applicants, one of them was REL HDEC.
Moreover, the Provision for bad debt relates to a revenue item that has already been treated as cash inflow on accrual basis.
REL HDEC formed a companysortium.
The said Committee met on 21.9.2005.
2600 crores .
Accordingly, by letter dated 18.7.2005, REL HDEC extended the validity of their Offer up to 6.10.2005 90 days .
By letter dated 24.6.2005, MSRDC requested REL HDEC to submit further details and clarifications and accordingly the Consortium of REL HDEC was once again requested to extend the validity of their Offer till 6.10.2005.
As a companysortium they were required to companyply with clause 7.2.2 which stipulated net cash profit at Rs.
By the said letter, MSRDC stated that there were numberqueries in respect of REL, but there were queries in respect of HDEC.
By reply dated 18.8.2005, REL HDEC submitted its clarification by pointing out that as on 10.1.2005 when RFQ document was submitted the audited accounts for FY ending 31.12.2004 were number ready, so far as HDEC was companycerned and, therefore, it had submitted the audited accounts of HDEC for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003.
By the said letter, MSRDC referred to the break up of net cash profit submitted by REL HDEC and asked for the basis for classifying certain heads of expenditure under the heading number cash expenditure.
The aforestated companytention advanced by the Consortium was rejected by M s. Jean Muller Consultant of MSRDC in following words In case of Provision for bad debts even though they are just Provision but number a write off, the same is treated as cash expense because once a Provision has been made, the write off does number get routed through the profit and loss account.
200 crores.
The said companysortium had submitted three audited accounts for the financial years ending 31.12.2001, 31.12.2002 31.12.2003.
The bidders were required to submit RFQ Document by 10.1.2005.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3526 OF 2007 KAPADIA, J. State of Maharashtra through Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. for short, MSRDC floated Global Tender for companypleting Mumbai Trans Harbour Link MTHL between Mumbai and Navi Mumbai on BOT basis.
Under the PQ Document, the bidders were required to submit financial statements of three financial years subject to the companydition that the latest should number be earlier than the financial year ending 31.12.2002.
By the said letter dated 18.8.2005, the REL HDEC also submitted audited accounts of HDEC for FY ending 31.12.2004.
The said Committee was headed by Mr. Justice R.J. Kochar, Judge of Bombay High Court retired , Shri A.K. Banerjee Technical Member in NHAI, Mr. R.S. Agarwal, Executive Director of IDBI retired , Mr. V. Giriraj, Joint Managing Director of MSRDC etc.
The companysortium had submitted their RFQ Document on 9.1.2005.
26000 million Rs.
In view of the position taken by MSRDCs Consultants, REL HDEC stood excluded from the second stage of the bidding process.
Under the PQ Document, M s Jean Muller, France was appointed as companysultant by MSRDC.
According to the said Consultants, the audited accounts of HDEC for the FY 31.12.2004 companystituted subsequent information i.e. information supplied after the cut off date of 10.1.2005 and, therefore, REL HDEC stood excluded from the second stage of the bidding process.
