“Matching Ammunition” and Fair-Trial Estoppel in Defence Tenders: A Structured Commentary on Stumpp Schuele Lewis Machine Tools Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Ors. (2025 DHC 5134)

Court: Delhi High Court (Division Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta)

Date: 1 July 2025

Citation: 2025 DHC 5134

Introduction

The Delhi High Court's decision in Stumpp Schuele Lewis Machine Tools Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Ors. resolves a recurrent controversy in defence procurement trials: whether bidders must use the exact ammunition specified for final supply during rifle trials, or whether “matching/compatible ammunition” is permissible when the tender contemplates it. The case arises from a CRPF tender to procure 200 units of 0.338" sniper rifles along with 20,000 rounds of 0.338" Lapua Magnum ammunition (250 gr). Three firms—Stumpp Schuele Lewis Machine Tools (the Petitioner), PLR Systems (R-3), and ICOMM Tele (R-4)—participated.

After two rounds of trials (first at Pune, then a re-test at the CRPF Academy, Kadarpur, Gurugram), the Petitioner failed the 400m accuracy test while R-3 and R-4 passed. The Petitioner assailed its disqualification, argued that R-3 and R-4 used Hollow Point Boat Tail (HPBT) ammunition in violation of tender stipulations allegedly restricting trials to “Ball/Lock Base” ammunition, and sought either disqualification of R-3 and R-4 or a further re-trial (or carry-forward of its earlier 400m success at Pune).

The central issues were (i) the justification for the Petitioner’s rejection; (ii) whether the use of HPBT ammunition during trials violated the tender; and (iii) whether HPBT provided undue advantage vitiating the trials. The Court’s analysis draws on settled principles of judicial restraint in tenders, deference to technical experts, estoppel arising from “fair trial certificates,” and the locus standi bar for disqualified bidders challenging rival qualifications.

Summary of the Judgment

• Rejection justified; no third trial: The Petitioner failed the 400m accuracy test in the second (re-test) round despite being given three attempts as per the agreed methodology. Claims of human error and environmental conditions were rejected, particularly because the trial framework accommodated such variance by allowing multiple attempts and because the Petitioner signed a fair trial certificate. The Court declined to order a third re-trial, emphasizing timeliness and public interest in procurement.
• “Matching ammunition” allowed during trials: The Court held there was no violation in R-3 and R-4 using HPBT ammunition during field trials. The tender envisaged deposit of “matching” or “compatible” ammunition for STEC-cum-field trials (Clauses 27(v), 14; Trial Directive remark: “OEM to provide specifications of compatible ammunition”). Ammunition is part of final delivery and is inspected at the JRI/DGQA stage, not during STEC trials.
• No undue advantage from HPBT at 400m: The Court accepted the expert/BOOs view and ballistic data that the G7 ballistic coefficient differences between HPBT and Lock Base rounds were marginal and not decisive at 400m. The Petitioner’s contrary claim was unpersuasive.
• Estoppel and locus standi: The Petitioner’s signing of “fair trial certificates” after both trials estopped post-facto objections. Being disqualified, the Petitioner had no locus to challenge the qualification of other bidders (Tata Motors v. BEST).
• Remand context: An earlier Division Bench order for re-trials was set aside by the Supreme Court for non-impleadment of R-3; the High Court heard the matter afresh and dismissed the writ petition.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Agmatel India (P) Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom (2022) 5/6 SCC 362/127: The Supreme Court reiterated that the author of the tender is best positioned to interpret its terms. The High Court applied this to uphold CRPF’s reading that “matching/compatible ammunition” could be used during STEC trials, given Clause 27(v), Special Instruction 14, and the Trial Directive remark requiring OEMs to provide compatible ammunition specifications.
• Tata Motors Ltd. v. BEST (2023 SCC OnLine SC 671): The Court applied the principle that a bidder disqualified as “non-responsive” lacks standing to attack the eligibility of a winning bidder. Having failed the 400m test, the Petitioner could not legitimately assail R-3 and R-4’s qualifications.
• Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517: Emphasizes minimal judicial interference in commercial tenders absent arbitrariness, mala fides, or perversity. The Court found none in the CRPF’s conduct or in the expert-driven evaluation process.
• Air India v. Cochin International Airport (2000) 2 SCC 617; Assn. of Registration Plates v. Union of India (2005) 1 SCC 679: Cited through the Court’s reference to “Tata Motors (supra)” to caution against interventions that derail procurement timelines and escalate public costs. The plea for a third re-trial was rejected on these public interest considerations.
• Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi (2013) 11 SCC 309: A participant cannot later challenge the selection process it consciously accepted. The Petitioner’s post-result objections, despite consenting to methodology and signing fair-trial certificates, were barred.
• C&S Electric Ltd. v. Union of India, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 5130: A bidder who does not object during technical trials, and consents to methodology, is estopped from contesting rival samples post-evaluation. Applied by analogy to the Petitioner’s silence over HPBT usage at both venues.
• N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain (2022) 6 SCC 127: Reinforces judicial restraint in tender matters and deference to technical/commercial decisions of expert bodies. The High Court invoked this general theme in accepting the BOOs’ technical assessments.
• Poddar Steel Corp. v. Ganesh Engg. Works (1991) 3 SCC 273; Bakshi Security & Personnel Services v. Devkishan (2016) 8 SCC 446: Relied on by the Petitioner to argue essential conditions cannot be waived. Distinguished: here the tender itself permitted compatible ammunition at the trial stage; inspection of the specified Lapua Magnum ammunition was reserved for JRI/DGQA at final delivery. Hence, no deviation from essential conditions occurred.

Legal Reasoning Applied by the Court

1) Disqualification of the Petitioner was justified

• Agreed methodology and multiple attempts: Before the Gurugram re-test, all bidders agreed to a detailed methodology (accuracy at 100m, 400m, 800m, 1000m; plus zeroing), including up to three attempts at each range for each sniper from a fixed mount. The Petitioner failed at 400m even after three attempts.
• Fair trial certificates and estoppel: The Petitioner signed “fair trial certificates” after both Pune and Gurugram trials, certifying fairness and absence of objection. This estopped subsequent challenges premised on “human error,” “mirage,” or “crosswinds.” The methodology already factored such variables by allowing repeated attempts.
• Supersession of Pune results (except 1200m): Parties mutually agreed to carry forward only the 1200m penetration/effective range result (where all three had succeeded) from Pune. Accuracy results at other ranges were to be re-determined at Gurugram. The Court therefore rejected the plea to “carry forward” the Petitioner’s earlier 400m success.
• No right to a third trial: Neither the tender nor principles of equity warranted a further re-test. Defence procurement is time-sensitive; further delay would prejudice public interest and contravene settled procurement jurisprudence on judicial restraint.

2) “Matching/Compatible Ammunition” may be used at the trial stage

• Tender text controls:
  • General Conditions, Clause 27(v): requires “matching ammunitions of Lapua Magnum” for STEC-cum-field trials.
  • Special Instructions (Schedule II), Clause 14: bidders must deposit 500 rounds of “matching ammunitions” with two tender-sample rifles for evaluation.
  • Trial Directives (Appendix-4/GSQR), Serial 3 “Remark”: “OEM to provide specification of the compatible ammunition.”
  Together, these provisions evidence that for trial purposes, what matters is compatibility with the 0.338" calibre rifle, not the specific bullet type intended for supply.
• Ammunition inspection is a final-delivery event: Special Instructions, Clause 15(iii), explicitly states “Ammunition is a part of the final delivery… not checked during STEC stage… will be checked during JRI by DGQA.” Trials assess the weapon system; the specified Lapua Magnum ammunition (250 gr) will be verified later at JRI/DGQA.
• Context from MoD tender: The GSQR was borrowed from an MoD RFP for similar rifles. In that MoD process, pre-bid clarifications had expressly allowed “matching calibre” ammunition for trials. The Petitioner, a participant in that process, was well aware of this approach.
• Deference to expert interpretation: BOOs/CRPF, as authors and evaluators, reasonably construed “matching/compatible” ammunition to include HPBT rounds for trial. This plausible interpretation, supported by expert testimony, attracted the Agmatel doctrine of tender-author primacy.

3) No undue advantage from HPBT at 400m

• Ballistic coefficients were comparable: Manufacturer data showed G7 differences between the Petitioner’s Lock Base and R-3/R-4’s HPBT/OTM rounds were minimal (e.g., 0.310 vs 0.314; 0.322). Such marginal differences may matter at long ranges; they are not decisive at 400m.
• Expert evidence accepted: The Commandant (Ordnance), CRPF explained that any 0.338" rifle can fire all standard 0.338" rounds and be accuracy-tested with compatible ammunition. The Court found no arbitrariness in accepting this expert view over generalised assertions about HPBT benefits.
• Conduct-based inference: The Petitioner raised no contemporaneous objection to HPBT usage in either venue and certified fairness. Post-result objections were held to be an afterthought—used primarily to seek another re-test rather than to vindicate a genuine procurement irregularity.

4) Locus standi bar and judicial restraint

• Disqualified bidder cannot attack rivals: Following Tata Motors v. BEST, the Petitioner, having failed a mandatory criterion, lacked standing to contest the qualification of R-3 and R-4.
• Minimal interference in defence procurement: Citing Jagdish Mandal and Air India/Cochin International Airport, the Court emphasized that procurement choices, trial methodologies, and technical evaluations by expert bodies attract strong deference absent demonstrable mala fides, perversity, or illegality.

Impact and Significance

The decision articulates a clear, pragmatic framework for weapons trials in defence procurement:

• The “Matching Ammunition Rule” at trial stage: Where tender provisions and trial directives envisage “matching” or “compatible” ammunition, bidders may be permitted to use bullet types different from the final supply specification, provided calibre compatibility is maintained. Final ammunition compliance is a JRI/DGQA function, not a STEC/trials function.
• Fair-trial certificates create strong estoppel: Bidders who sign such certificates after participating and observing rivals’ samples and ammunition type will find it very difficult to mount post-facto challenges to methodology or rival compliance.
• Structured trial methodology endorsed: Pre-trial meetings, documented methodology, multiple attempts to account for human and environmental variability, and full audiovisual recording collectively insulate the process from collateral attack.
• Re-tests supersede prior results unless expressly carried forward: Where parties agree that a re-test will determine outcomes afresh (with limited carry-forward, e.g., 1200m penetration), earlier partial successes at other ranges cannot be resurrected selectively.
• Judicial restraint in defence procurements reaffirmed: Courts will hesitate to issue directions for re-trials that stall acquisitions vital to national security, particularly when expert bodies have acted transparently and reasonably.
• Drafting and process guidance for procurers:
  • Expressly state “matching/compatible ammunition” for trials, and place ammunition verification at JRI/DGQA in the tender.
  • Insert a Trial Directive remark requiring OEMs to furnish specifications of the compatible ammunition used at trials.
  • Record all pre-trial minutes and secure fair-trial certificates immediately after trials.
  • Clearly identify which results (if any) are carried forward in a re-test scenario.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• GSQR (General Staff Qualitative Requirements): A technical specification standard used across defence procurements. Here, the GSQR (Appendix-4) set parameters for the 0.338" sniper rifle and the ammunition to be procured.
• STEC (Standing Technical Evaluation Committee) / BOOs (Board of Officers): Expert committees that evaluate weapons during field trials against GSQR/Trial Directives. Their role is technical; courts defer to their assessments absent arbitrariness.
• Trial Directives: The detailed protocols for testing (ranges, targets, attempts, zeroing). In this case, a crucial remark allowed OEMs to use and specify “compatible ammunition” for trials.
• “Matching/Compatible ammunition” vs. “specified ammunition”:
  • Matching/compatible ammunition: rounds of the same calibre that function safely and properly in the rifle, used at trial to assess the weapon system.
  • Specified ammunition: the exact ammunition sought to be procured (here, 0.338" Lapua Magnum, 250 gr), verified at the JRI/DGQA stage at the time of final delivery.
• HPBT (Hollow Point Boat Tail) vs. Lock Base/Full Metal Jacket: Bullet designs within the same calibre. HPBT often has a slightly higher ballistic efficiency (G7/G1 coefficients), but marginal differences may not be outcome-determinative at shorter/mid ranges.
• Ballistic Coefficient (G1/G7): Measures a bullet’s ability to overcome air resistance. G7 often better fits modern long-range bullets. Small G7 differences (~0.004 here) are unlikely to change accuracy outcomes at 400m materially.
• Zeroing: Adjusting sights/optics so that the point of aim equals point of impact at a specific distance.
• MOA (Minute of Angle): An angular measurement used to describe group size/accuracy. 1 MOA is roughly 1 inch at 100 yards (~2.9 cm at 100m).
• JRI/DGQA: Joint Receipt Inspection by the Directorate General of Quality Assurance—a quality control check at final delivery, including ammunition conformity.
• Fair Trial Certificate: A declaration signed by bidders post-trial confirming fairness and absence of objection—powerful evidence against later challenges.
• Locus standi in tender disputes: A disqualified/non-responsive bidder generally lacks standing to contest others’ qualifications in ordinary writ proceedings (as clarified in Tata Motors v. BEST).

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision establishes a critical operational rule in defence procurement trials: when the tender and trial directives contemplate “matching/compatible ammunition,” bidders need not use the exact ammunition intended for final procurement during STEC trials; that ammunition’s compliance is checked at JRI/DGQA upon delivery. This “Matching Ammunition Rule,” coupled with the estoppel effect of fair-trial certificates and the locus standi bar for disqualified bidders, provides a robust framework to protect the integrity and timelines of defence tenders.

By upholding the CRPF’s expert-driven methodology, refusing a third re-trial, and distinguishing between trial-stage weapon evaluation and final-stage ammunition verification, the Court reaffirmed the principles of judicial restraint in complex, security-sensitive procurements. For procurers, the case underscores the value of clear drafting (matching ammunition clauses, DGQA/JRI allocation), transparent procedure (pre-trial minutes, multi-attempt methodology), and comprehensive record-keeping (video coverage, fair-trial certificates). For bidders, it is a cautionary precedent: raise objections contemporaneously, or risk being estopped later; and do not expect courts to recalibrate technical assessments absent clear illegality or arbitrariness.

Key takeaway: Defence weapon trials may legitimately rely on compatible rounds where tender provisions allow; fairness recorded contemporaneously will be decisive; and courts will rarely disturb a technically sound, expert-led evaluation process.