{"id":215403,"date":"2011-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011"},"modified":"2019-01-07T23:05:38","modified_gmt":"2019-01-07T17:35:38","slug":"mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mep-Ideal Toll Consortium vs Mcd & Ors on 29 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Mep-Ideal Toll Consortium vs Mcd & Ors on 29 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed<\/div>\n
       THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                                           Judgment delivered on: 29.04.2011\n\n+      W.P.(C) No.2603\/2011\n\n\nMEP-IDEAL TOLL CONSORTIUM                                  ..... Petitioner\n\n                       versus\n\nMCD & ORS.                                                 ..... Respondents<\/pre>\n
Advocates who appeared in this case:-\n<\/p>\n
For the Petitioner                :      Dr Abhishek M. Singhvi, Sr Adv.,
\n                                         Mr Neeraj K. Kaul, Sr Adv.,
\n                                         Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr Adv. with
\n                                         Mr Rudreshwar Singh, Mr Deepak Chitnis,
\n                                         Ms Nidhiram Ram and
\n                                         Mr Mohit Choudhry<\/p>\n
For the Respondents               :      Mr Rajiv Nayar, Sr Adv., Mr Sudhir
\n                                         Nandrajog, Sr Adv with Mr Gaurang Kanth
\n                                         and Mr Rahul Kumar, Advs. for
\n                                         respondent\/MCD<\/p>\n
CORAM:-\n<\/p>\n
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
\nHON’BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL<\/p>\n
1.     Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
\n       to see the judgment? yes<\/p>\n
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not? yes<\/p>\n
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? yes<\/p>\n
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)<\/p>\n
1.     By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of Certiorari<\/p>\n
or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records of the instant tender<\/p>\n
matter from the respondents and for setting aside the decision of the respondent<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.2603\/2011                                                    Page 1 of 6<\/span>
\n no. 1 conveyed to the petitioner by a letter dated 23.04.2011 whereby the<\/p>\n
Technical Evaluation Committee of the respondent no. 1 has declared the<\/p>\n
petitioner no. 1 consortium as having failed in the technical evaluation. A writ<\/p>\n
of Mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents to consider the<\/p>\n
Financial Bid submitted by the petitioner in relation to the Request For<\/p>\n
Proposal Document dated 01.03.2001 calling for bids for \u201eEngagement of the<\/p>\n
Contractor\u201f by the MCD for Toll Collection at border points from specified<\/p>\n
commercial vehicles entering Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
2.     The impugned letter dated 23.04.2011 reads as under:-<\/p>\n
               “MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
\n                      TOLL TAX DEPARTMENT
\n              th
\n        14 Floor, \u201eE\u201f Block, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, New Delhi-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                 110002
\n                          (Tel:011-23226422)<\/p>\n
       No: AC(TT)\/HQ\/2011\/41             Dated : 23.4.2011<\/p>\n
       To<\/p>\n
       M\/s MEP-IDEAL TOLL CONSORTIUM
\n       410, Boomerang, Near Chandivli Studio,
\n       Chandivli Farm Road, Andheri (East),
\n       MUMBAI- 400 072.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (Emai : feedback@meptollroad.com)<\/p>\n
       Sub: ENGAGEMENT OF A CONTRACTOR BY MCD
\n       FOR TOLL COLLECTION AT BORDER POINTS FROM
\n       SPECIFIED COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ENTERING
\n       DELHI.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Sir,
\n             The Technical Evaluation Committee after examining
\n       the Technical Bid submitted by your consortium declares you
\n       as “FAIL”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              The reason for your disqualification briefly is due to
\n       the applicability of Clause 1.5(a) and 1.5(d) of Section -2-B,
\n       (page-21) of Volume-I of RFP document, which pertains to<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.2603\/2011                                                    Page 2 of 6<\/span>
\n        the \u201eConflict of Interest\u201f and opinion of the Solicitor General
\n       of India on the subject.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                  Yours faithfully,<\/p>\n
                                                 ( Vinay Kumar )
\n                                              Asstt. Commissioner
\n                                                        (Toll Tax)”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.     It is apparent that the reason for disqualification has been briefly stated<\/p>\n
to be due to the applicability of Clauses 1.5(a) and 1.5(b) of Section 2-B of<\/p>\n
Volume-I of the RFP document which pertains to \u201eConflict of Interest\u201f. Of<\/p>\n
course, another reason for disqualification has also been mentioned and that is<\/p>\n
the opinion of the Solicitor General on the subject.<\/p>\n
4.     The relevant portion of clause 1.5 of Section 2-B of Volume-I of the<\/p>\n
RFP Document reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       “1.5 Any Applicant\/Bidder shall not have a conflict of
\n       interest (the “Conflict of Interest”) that affects the bidding
\n       process. Any Applicant\/Bidder found to have a Conflict of
\n       Interest shall be disqualified. An Applicant shall be deemed
\n       to have a Conflict of Interest affecting the bidding process, if:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (a)     the Applicant\/Bidder, its member or associate (or any
\n       constituent thereof) and any other Applicant, its Member or
\n       any Associate thereof (or any constituent thereof) have
\n       common controlling shareholders or other ownership interest;
\n       provided that this disqualification shall not apply in cases
\n       where the direct or indirect shareholding of an Applicant, its
\n       Member or an Associate thereof (or any shareholder thereof
\n       having a shareholding of more than 5 per cent of the paid up
\n       and subscribed share capital of such Applicant, Member or
\n       Associate, as the case may be) in the other Applicant, its
\n       Member or Associate is less than 5 per cent of the subscribed
\n       and paid up equity share capital thereof; provided further that
\n       this disqualification shall not apply to any ownership by a
\n       bank, insurance company, pension fund or a public financial
\n       institution referred to in section 4A of the Companies Act,
\n       1956.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C) No.2603\/2011                                                       Page 3 of 6<\/span><\/p>\n
        (b)    XXXX          XXXX          XXXX          XXXX\n\n       (c)    XXXX          XXXX          XXXX          XXXX\n\n       (d)    such Applicant, or any Associate thereof has a\n<\/pre>\n
       relationship with another Applicant\/Bidder, or any Associate
\n       thereof, directly or through common third party\/parties, that
\n       puts either or both of them in a position to have access to each
\n       others\u201f information about, or to influence the bidding of
\n       either or each other; or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       (e)    XXXX          XXXX          XXXX          XXXX”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
5.     Initially, the learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out that the<\/p>\n
disqualification was on the ground that one Mr Dattatray P. Mhaiskar owned<\/p>\n
shares in the companies constituting two consortiums who have applied<\/p>\n
separately. The two consortiums involved in the present petition are –<\/p>\n
(1) MEP-Ideal Toll Consortium which is comprised of (a) MEP Toll Road Pvt<\/p>\n
Ltd and (b) Ideal Toll and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd; and (2) IRB-MIPL<\/p>\n
Consortium which, in turn, is comprised of (a) IRB Infrastructure Developers<\/p>\n
Ltd and (b) Mhaiskar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.            The initial objection and<\/p>\n
disqualification was with regard to the allegation that the said Mr Dattatray P.<\/p>\n
Mhaiskar had shares in each of the four constituent companies of the two<\/p>\n
consortiums and that insofar as IRB Infrastructure Developers Ltd is<\/p>\n
concerned, he had a shareholding of 7.63 per cent which was in excess of the 5<\/p>\n
per cent limit prescribed in Clause 1.5(a). However, this argument has been<\/p>\n
given up by the respondents inasmuch as a plain reading of Clause 1.5(a) would<\/p>\n
show that the disqualification qua Mr Dattatray P. Mhaiskar could only apply if<\/p>\n
he held more than 5 per cent shares in a constituent of both the consortiums and<\/p>\n
not just in one of the consortiums.\n<\/p>\n
\nW.P.(C) No.2603\/2011                                                      Page 4 of 6<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 6.     The other ground for disqualification under Clause 1.5(a), according to<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the respondent-MCD is that Ideal Toll and<\/p>\n
Infrastructure Pvt Ltd which is a constituent of MEP-Ideal Toll Consortium<\/p>\n
itself holds 7.63 per cent of the shares of IRB Infrastructure Developers Ltd<\/p>\n
which is a constituent of IRB-MIPL Consortium and this, in itself, disqualifies<\/p>\n
the petitioner consortium (MEP-Ideal Toll Consortium) on the ground of<\/p>\n
\u201eConflict of Interest\u201f as contemplated under Clause 1.5(a) which has been set<\/p>\n
out above.\n<\/p>\n
7.     The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that unless and<\/p>\n
until there was a countervailing ownership interest of a constituent of the other<\/p>\n
consortium in the petitioner consortium in excess of 5 per cent, the deeming<\/p>\n
provision of \u201eConflict of Interest\u201f would not get triggered.<\/p>\n
8.     We have heard the counsel for the parties on this aspect of the matter and<\/p>\n
upon a plain reading of Clause 1.5(a) we feel that the only interpretation that<\/p>\n
can be given to it is that when an applicant or its constituent, itself, has an<\/p>\n
ownership interest in another applicant or its constituent and that ownership<\/p>\n
interest is in excess of 5 per cent of the subscribed and paid up equity share<\/p>\n
capital then it shall be deemed to have a \u201eConflict of Interest\u201f. Admittedly,<\/p>\n
Ideal Toll and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd which is a constituent of MEP-Ideal Toll<\/p>\n
Consortium has an ownership interest of 7.63% in IRB Infrastructure<\/p>\n
Developers Ltd which is a constituent of the other consortium – IRB-MIPL<\/p>\n
Consortium. Hence, the deemed conflict of interest is triggered. It is with<\/p>\n
regard to this aspect of the matter that the MCD has ultimately disqualified the<\/p>\n
petitioner consortium on the basis of \u201eConflict of Interest\u201f.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.2603\/2011                                                 Page 5 of 6<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 9.     Insofar as the plea of the disqualification under Clause 1.5(d) is<\/p>\n
concerned, we find that at this stage it would be very difficult to come to a<\/p>\n
concrete conclusion as to whether the \u201eConflict of Interest\u201f as stipulated therein<\/p>\n
is made out or not because there is no material before us to ascertain as to<\/p>\n
whether constituents of the consortiums had access to each others\u201f information<\/p>\n
or were in a position to influence the bidding of each other. Therefore, we are<\/p>\n
not in agreement, prima facie, with the submissions made by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the MCD on the applicability of Clause 1.5(d) of Section 2-B of the<\/p>\n
RFP Document. However, on the basis of the view taken by us in respect of<\/p>\n
Clause 1.5(a) we feel that the fact that Ideal Toll and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd<\/p>\n
holds 7.63 per cent shares of IRB Infrastructure Developers Ltd and thereby<\/p>\n
holds shares in excess of the 5 per cent shares stipulated in Clause 1.5(a), is<\/p>\n
sufficient ground for disqualification of the petitioner consortium.<\/p>\n
10.    We may also point out that an identical provision (except that the<\/p>\n
stipulation with regard to shareholding was 1% and not 5% as in the present<\/p>\n
case) was considered in the case of Navinya Buildcon Private Limited v.<\/p>\n
Union of India & Others, W.P.<\/a>(C) No. 7181\/2009, decided on 08.04.2009, by<\/p>\n
a Division Bench of this court and a similar view was taken.<\/p>\n
11.    In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed and the interim<\/p>\n
order stands vacated. Dasti.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                         BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J<\/p>\n
                                         VEENA BIRBAL, J
\nAPRIL 29, 2011\/kks<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.2603\/2011                                                   Page 6 of 6<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Mep-Ideal Toll Consortium vs Mcd & Ors on 29 April, 2011 Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 29.04.2011 + W.P.(C) No.2603\/2011 MEP-IDEAL TOLL CONSORTIUM ….. Petitioner versus MCD & ORS. ….. Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:- For the Petitioner : […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-215403","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMep-Ideal Toll Consortium vs Mcd & Ors on 29 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mep-Ideal Toll Consortium vs Mcd & Ors on 29 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-07T17:35:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mep-Ideal Toll Consortium vs Mcd & Ors on 29 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-07T17:35:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1503,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Mep-Ideal Toll Consortium vs Mcd & Ors on 29 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-07T17:35:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mep-Ideal Toll Consortium vs Mcd & Ors on 29 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mep-Ideal Toll Consortium vs Mcd & Ors on 29 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mep-Ideal Toll Consortium vs Mcd & Ors on 29 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-07T17:35:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mep-Ideal Toll Consortium vs Mcd & Ors on 29 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-07T17:35:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011"},"wordCount":1503,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011","name":"Mep-Ideal Toll Consortium vs Mcd & Ors on 29 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-07T17:35:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mep-ideal-toll-consortium-vs-mcd-ors-on-29-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mep-Ideal Toll Consortium vs Mcd & Ors on 29 April, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215403","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=215403"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215403\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215403"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215403"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215403"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}