Skip to main content

For every minor irregularity, a tender is not to be cancelled

In M/s Singh Caterers & Vendors & Anr. v. Indian Railways Catering And Tourism Corporation Ltd., writ petition has been filed challenging termination letter passed by Respondent-IRCTC terminating temporary license awarded to Petitioners for management of On Board Catering Services in Train on ground that, Petitioners had failed to accept award of temporary license and had not paid the security deposit and license fee within stipulated time. Respondent in terms of Clause 4.8 of tender document also debarred Petitioners from participating in future projects of Respondent, IRCTC for a period of one year and forfeited Standing Earnest Money Deposit (SEMD) of Rs.3 lakhs.

High Court is of view that cutting/overwriting in present case is not a violation of a mandatory condition and is not material as there is no ambiguity or discrepancy in bid amount. Petitioners bid despite cutting/overwriting clearly mentions the revised bid amount. In fact, revised bid amount has been mentioned clearly both in figures and in words.

It is settled law that for every minor irregularity, a tender is not to be cancelled. Petitioners cannot make a virtue out of their own mistake. However, High Court is in agreement with the learned counsel for Petitioners that punishment of debarment for a period of one year is not proportionate, especially keeping in view fact that the petitioners have been an empanelled contractor/caterer with Railways and is at the moment serving another train by way of On Board Catering Services.

The concept of proportionality of punishment is not unknown to law. The Supreme Court in Kulja Industries Limited vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors., has held permanent debarment from future contracts for all times to come may sound too harsh and heavy a punishment to be considered reasonable. Consequently, the punishment of debarment of Petitioners in the peculiar facts of present case is reduced to nine months w.e.f. 26th September, 2016.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more