Chandigarh, February 11
In a significant judgment liable to end controversy over the experience of a contractor executing the works of the state, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that jointly created experience of a partnership firm cannot be claimed by one of its partners in his independent capacity.
Collective effort
A firm’s so-called experience was that of its partners and attributable to their collective effort. It was not in its entirety attributable to each individual partner. — High Court Bench
The ruling by the Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli came in a case where a contractor’s bid was rejected on the ground that his experience with an erstwhile partnership firm could not be counted as his. The judgment is significant as it makes it clear that the experience of a firm is that of its partners. But each partner’s know-how is not the same as the firm.
The Bench asserted more than one person could gain experience from the same subject. But that could not by itself evince the conclusion that each person gaining ‘experience’ in the output jointly generated was entitled to the benefit of the output in its entirety.
“The benefit of the experience of a firm, understood as an inextricably synthesised synergism of the individual efforts of all partners, cannot, therefore, be extended to a single partner in his individual capacity merely because he might have been actively involved in producing the jointly created final output. Therefore, given the nature of experience, it could have been identifiable, and could be quantified, quantitatively and/or qualitatively, only if it was claimed by the firm itself or its partners jointly,” the Bench held.
The judgment added not necessarily attending to the day-to-day business of a firm was not unusual for every partner. Even a partner with requisite experience might not have ever participated in the firm’s management or affairs as he may only be an investment partner.
It added tenders or award of contract matters were in essence commercial in nature. As such, the tender inviting authority was certainly entitled to evaluate and satisfy itself regarding the capability and competence of the tenderer in completing the tasks of the kind and magnitude involved.
The Bench also rejected the argument that the partner held 50 per cent share in the erstwhile partnership firm. As such, he was entitled to claim proportionate work experience, equal to half the value of the project. — TNS
Partner can’t call firm’s experience as his: HC
{$excerpt:n}
