Background
The case arose out of a tender dispute concerning outsourcing of Consular, Passport and Visa (“CPV”) services in Sri Lanka between International Visa Services Pvt Ltd (formerly IVS Lanka Pvt Ltd) (“Petitioner”) and the Union of India (“Respondent”).
The Respondent had earlier entered into an Agreement dated 03.06.2013 with IVS Global Services Pvt Ltd (“IVS Global”) for providing CPV services in Sri Lanka (“2013 Agreement”). In order to comply with local requirements, IVS Global incorporated the Petitioner as a local entity in Sri Lanka, and an MOU dated 04.07.2013 was executed between them for operational execution of services. The copy of the MOU was also submitted to the Respondent.
The Petitioner executed the CPV services for more than a decade (2013–2025), which was also recognised by the Respondent by way of press releases, sanctioning approvals and appreciation letters addressing and mentioning Petitioner. However, the contractual relationship formally remained between the Respondent and IVS Global. The 2013 Agreement was periodically extended and continued till 31.10.2025.
The Respondent subsequently issued a fresh Request for Proposal (“RFP”) dated 03.02.2025 (“First RFP”) prescribing Mandatory Eligibility Criteria (“MEC”). The Petitioner participated in the said tendering process and was found technically eligible. Thereafter, the Respondent issued another RFP dated 27.11.2025 (“Second RFP”), prescribing similar MEC as that of First RFP. IVS Global clarified that it will not be participating in the Second RFP, however, the Petitioner submitted its bid relying on experience gained under the 2013 Agreement.
The Respondent, by communication dated 29.12.2025, disqualified the Petitioner on the ground that such experience belonged to IVS Global (the contracting entity) and could not be attributed to the Petitioner. Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226, challenging its disqualification.
Issues and Decision
Whether an entity which functioned as an operational arm under a MOU can claim the experience gained under such MOU for the purpose of satisfying eligibility criteria in a tender?
The Petitioner contended that it had, in fact, executed the CPV services for over a decade with the Respondent’s knowledge, approval and continuous supervision. It relied upon documents such as approvals, fee confirmations, application count certifications, appreciation letters and bank guarantees to demonstrate that it was the actual service provider and had acquired the requisite experience. It was further argued that the Respondent had treated the Petitioner as technically qualified in First RFP containing identical eligibility criteria, hence, the subsequent disqualification was arbitrary and inconsistent.
On the contrary, the Respondent contended that the Petitioner was merely an executing entity operating under the supervision and control of IVS Global, which alone bore contractual obligations, risks and liabilities, thus experience can be attributed only to IVS Global and not to the Petitioner herein.
The Delhi High Court upheld the Respondent’s position and held that the 2013 Agreement, along with its extensions, was executed exclusively between the Respondent and IVS Global, and there was no assignment or novation of the contract in favour of the Petitioner. Accordingly, privity of contract remained solely with IVS Global [¶15–17].
Interpreting the MOU dated 04.07.2013, the Court observed that the Petitioner functioned as an executing or facilitating entity under the supervision, control and financial oversight of IVS Global. Further, in the MOU, the client ownership was retained by the IVS Global, hence the Petitioner was expressly barred from claiming Respondent as its client. [¶18–21]. The Court further noted that IVS Global continues to exist as a separate legal entity and was itself claiming the same experience in other tenders. Permitting the Petitioner to rely on the same experience would result in two independent entities deriving eligibility from a single contract, thereby undermining fair competition and the integrity of the tender process [¶31–33].
The Court held that in law, where an entity acts as an agent of a disclosed principal, the principal alone is entitled and liable under the Contract, as per Section 230 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. Thus, operational execution by the Petitioner could not translate into independent contractual experience in absence of assignment or novation [¶30].
With respect to the earlier RFP where the Petitioner had been declared technically qualified, the Court held that an erroneous or inadvertent evaluation in a previous tender does not create an estoppel against the Respondent, particularly when in the First RFP, the Petitioner was found qualified under the assumption that it is still operating under the supervision of IVS Global, which was subsequently clarified in Second RFP [¶37].
Accordingly, the Court held that the Petitioner failed to satisfy the MEC relating to experience and upheld its disqualification from the tender process. The writ petition was dismissed.
Case Details
Case Name: International Visa Services Pvt Ltd v. Union of India
Court: Delhi High Court
Case No.: W.P.(C) 5/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2696-DB
Date of Judgment: 30.03.2026
Coram: Justice V. Kameswar Rao & Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora