Skip to main content

A letter of intent is not a binding agreement enforceable in Courts

In Honshu Buildcon Private Limited and Ors. Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, High Court of Delhi, Petitioner received a Show Cause Notice from the NDMC, alleging that Petitioner had a direct connection with certain defaulter companies which violated the terms and conditions of the tender notice (NIT) and asked Honshu to explain why its application submitted for participation in the e-auction should not be cancelled along with further actions.

On receipt of the Show Cause Notice Honshu confirmed that its directors, as well as its shareholders had no direct relation with the defaulter companies as alleged, and requested the NDMC to withdraw the said Show Cause Notice on this ground alone. It, requested the NDMC to withdraw the Show Cause Notice being without any merit. On NDMC cancelling the Letter of Intent (LoI) and forfeiting EMD deposited by the Petitioner, Honshu preferred the writ petition alleging that, the cancellation is arbitrary and mala fide. 

NDMC alleges to have discovered that Honshu and Reihen had relations with certain defaulter/blacklisted companies/entities, which is in violation of the terms and conditions of the NIT, in both the issues.

The court held that when the State invites tender bids, it ought to adhere to the terms of the NIT, and ideally not waver from complying with the conditions set forth in the NIT. This was highlighted in the Supreme Court decision of Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India and Ors. The terms of the NIT are the guidelines that enable the procedure of conducting the tender process, thus, in order to ensure that the same is conducted efficiently, they should not be digressed from, as far as applicable. The Supreme Court in Central Coalfields Limited and Ors. upheld the sanctity of administrative decision making. Therefore, consistent judicial view has been that, public law review of tender matters ought to be exercised, judiciously. Such judicial review must be restrained to ensure that the choice or decision is made "lawfully" and not to exercise oversight over whether choice or decision is "sound". This Court, therefore, will apply the same standard in the present cases. Public and state contracts involve expenditure of substantial public money. Therefore, it is quite crucial to ensure that no anomaly arises that could jeopardise such expenditure. The fact that, the Petitioners were found to have relations with black-listed companies not only violates the clauses of the NIT, but also emerge as red flags to the safe and effective implementation of public resources. These considerations have been given due regard by the administrative authorities in arriving at its decision. 

As regards cancellation of the letters of intent initially issued to the petitioners, the Court has to be mindful of the fact that, a letter of intent is not a binding agreement enforceable in Courts, and neither is it a promise to issue a subsequent allotment letter. As regards the arbitrariness alleged to be the basis on which the NDMC cancelled the letters of intent, the Court observes that, the Petitioners have merely denied the grounds of the respective Show Cause Notices, without countering them substantially. Particularly, in light of the bank statements that clearly indicate a strong financial relationship between the Petitioners and a list of black-listed companies, a mere denial of such association cannot be accepted. Thus Impugned letters of the NDMC withdrawing the LoIs is based on justifiable grounds.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more