ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we are of the opinion that the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside. 3. Respondent No. 3 viz. the State of Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation Limited issued a notice inviting tender that was due on 7th February, 2015. The work was excavation of sand from Submergence areas of Moithummeda Vagu of LMD Project and transport the same to the Stockyard near Sammakka Sarakka Dimme and again loading of the same into the lorries at Stockyard at Kothpalli Village, Thimapur, Mandal, Karimnagar District, Telangana State. 4. One of the qualifying requirements as mentioned in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) is that the bidder must be an individual/company who has executed in the last three years at least one work of value not less than Rs.5.00 crores (Rupees Five Crores) involving excavation and removal of any mineral including sand in State/Central Government Undertaking or large Public Limited Companies and/or Mines of any company. 5. Respondent No. 1 viz. K.V.V.S.N. Associates had given its bid in terms of the NIT but was not considered eligible by the third respondent. Since Respondent No.1 was not eligible, the bids given by the others were opened and the tender awarded to the lowest bidder, the appellant - G.V. Pratap Reddy before us. 6. Respondent No. 1 challenged the award of tender given to the appellant and also the decision taken by Respondent No. 3 with regard to the ineligibility of Respondent No.1. On due consideration of the materials placed before it, the High Court came to the conclusion that the word "Company" used in the NIT was rather vague and under the circumstances it should include a firm as well. The High Court relied on Section 366 of the Companies Act which falls under Chapter XXI and some other statutes to conclude that the word 'Company' used in the NIT was somewhat vague. Thereafter, it was held that respondent no.1 was erroneously held ineligible and excluded from the tender process. 7. We must immediately point out that Section 366 of the Companies Act is completely inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The provisions of Section 366 of the said Act are applicable only to that part of the Companies Act to which a reference has been made in that Section. 7. We must immediately point out that Section 366 of the Companies Act is completely inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The provisions of Section 366 of the said Act are applicable only to that part of the Companies Act to which a reference has been made in that Section. Similarly, reliance placed for interpreting 'company' on several other statues such as the Income Tax Act, Negotiable Instruments Act, Employees State Insurance Act and Minimum Wages Act etc. is wholly irrelevant. 8. We have also perused the terms of NIT and find that when the word 'Company" is used in the NIT it means a company as per the Companies Act. 9. In paragraph 7.1.2 of the NIT it is clearly mentioned that the documents that have been submitted by the tender shall be signed with the date and the Company's seal on each paper. 10. Under the heading Authority to Sign the Tender, it is specifically mentioned that all signatures shall be dated and the company's seal shall be placed below it. 11. Similarly in paragraph 8.1. it is clearly mentioned that in case of companies all the pages of all the documents should be signed by the authorised representatives of the Company and the company seal affixed thereon. The position is somewhat similar in paragraph 8.2 of the NIT as well. 12. On reading of the terms of the NIT it is clear that the word "Company" can only mean a company as understood under the Companies Act and cannot be read to include a firm. The word "Company" in the NIT is incapable of any other meaning. 13. The NIT makes it absolutely clear that only an individual or a company is eligible to participate in the tender. Since Respondent No. 1 is neither an individual nor a Company but a firm, Respondent No. 3 was fully entitled to reject the bid of the said respondent. 14. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the decision of the High Court deserves to be set aside and we do so accordingly. 15. The civil appeal is allowed. No costs. 16. In view of the above, interlocutory application is disposed of and the interim orders are vacated.