Trendy Security Services vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Orders Decided May 04, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1263620

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1263620
Court: Delhi Orders High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal
Decided On: May 04, 2026
Case Number: W.P.(C)/5971/2026
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Trendy Security Services

Advocate Mr. Nitin Yadav, Mr. Aman Yadav, Ms. Kalyani Tehri, Mr. Shiv Yadav, Ms. Anushka Sharma, Ms. Nisha Rani

Respondent

Delhi Development Authority and Ors

Advocate Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Mr. Shivam Takiar, Mr. Prateek Dhir, Mr. Kuljeet Singh

Excerpt

* in the high court of delhi at new delhi+ w.p.(c) 5971/2026, cm appl. 29317/2026 and cm appl. trendy security services .....petitioner through: mr. nitin yadav, mr. aman yadav, ms. kalyani tehri, mr. shiv yadav, ms. anushka sharma, ms. nisha rani, advs.versusdelhi development authority and ors .....respondents through: ms. shobhana takiar, standing counsel with mr. shivam takiar, mr. prateek dhir, mr. kuljeet singh, advs. for dda.coram:hon'ble mr. justice anil kshetarpalhon'ble mr. justice amit mahajanorder% 04.05.20261. through the present petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the tender process in respect of gem bid no.gem/2026/b/7398475 dated 27.03.2026.2. pursuant to the nit, various bidders submitted their tenders, and the technical bids were opened on 06.04.2026. after that, as many as eight (08) bidders were declared qualified at that stage.3. now, the petitioner has sent notice contending that thesolvency certificate issued by the respondent no.4/icici bank in favour of the respondent no.3 is not correct since the respondent no.3 had not given out all the facts. it is the petitioner’s case that the said notice and representation have been submitted to the competent authority, and that the financial bid is yet to be opened.4. keeping in view the aforesaid position, the present petition isdisposed of, while directing the respondent-authority, including the bank, to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with the law, within a period of ten (10) days from today.5. the pending applications also stand closed.anil kshetarpal, j.amit mahajan, j.may 4, 2026 jai/kb

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5971/2026, CM APPL. 29317/2026 and CM APPL. TRENDY SECURITY SERVICES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitin Yadav, Mr. Aman Yadav, Ms. Kalyani Tehri, Mr. Shiv Yadav, Ms. Anushka Sharma, Ms. Nisha Rani, Advs.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel with Mr. Shivam Takiar, Mr. Prateek Dhir, Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Advs. for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

ORDER

% 04.05.2026

1. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the tender process in respect of GeM Bid No.GEM/2026/B/7398475 DATED 27.03.2026.

2. Pursuant to the NIT, various bidders submitted their tenders, and the technical bids were opened on 06.04.2026. After that, as many as eight (08) bidders were declared qualified at that stage.

3. Now, the Petitioner has sent Notice contending that the

Solvency Certificate issued by the Respondent No.4/ICICI Bank in favour of the Respondent No.3 is not correct since the Respondent No.3 had not given out all the facts. It is the Petitioner’s case that the said Notice and representation have been submitted to the Competent Authority, and that the financial bid is yet to be opened.

4. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, the present Petition is

disposed of, while directing the Respondent-Authority, including the Bank, to consider the Petitioner’s Representation and pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with the law, within a period of ten (10) days from today.

5. The pending applications also stand closed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

MAY 4, 2026 jai/kb

Same Court & Year Delhi Orders · 2026 Same Parties Trendy Security Services vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Anil Ksh...