CJ DARCL LOGISTICS LTD vs FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — CWP/13268/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 01-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010724802026

e-Filing Number

28-04-2026

Filing Number

CWP/26025/2026

Filing Date

29-Apr-2026

Registration No

CWP/13268/2026

Registration Date

29-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal , Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji

Coram

Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal , Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji

Bench Type

Double

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CJ DARCL LOGISTICS LTD

    Adv. DINESH MAURYA

  2. 2.Food Corporation of India and another

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.Food Corporation of India and another

  3. 3.General Manager,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal,ms. Justice Lapita BanerjiView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed CJ DARCL Logistics' petition challenging FCI's refusal to allow withdrawal of its inadvertently submitted financial bid of Rs.4,34,92,350 (1.29 times base value), which the petitioner claimed should have been Rs.7,72,07,350 (2.29 times base value). The court held that the Model Tender Form explicitly prohibited bid modification post-submission and the petitioner, as an experienced contractor, was bound by its submitted offer; the court distinguished cited Supreme Court precedents and found no merit in granting discretionary relief outside tender terms. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/13268/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed CJ DARCL Logistics' petition challenging FCI's refusal to allow withdrawal of its inadvertently submitted financial bid of Rs.4,34,92,350 (1.29 times base value), which the petitioner claimed should have been Rs.7,72,07,350 (2.29 times base value). The court held that the Model Tender Form explicitly prohibited bid modification post-submission and the petitioner, as an experienced contractor, was bound by its submitted offer; the court distinguished cited Supreme Court precedents and found no merit in granting discretionary relief outside tender terms. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case