SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, AND K.K. MATHEW, JJ.
Union of India and others Appellants
Versus
N. K. Private Limited and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1067 of 1971, D/-11-2-1972.
Advocates appeared
M/s. N. A. Palkhivala and D. Mukherjee, Sr. Advocates (M/s. R.H. Dhebar and A. J. Rane, Advocates, with them), for Appellants Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Advocate (Mr. G. L. Sanghi, Advocate, Mr. B. R. Agarwala, Advocate of M/s. Gagrat and Co. and Mr. Janendra Lal Advocate with him.) (for No. 1) and Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. G. L. Sanghi, Advocate and Mr. B. R. Agarwala, Advocate of 916 M/s. Gagrat and Co. with him), (for No. 2) for Respondents.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 299 - Arbitration Act - Section 20 - Global Tender - Ministry of Railways Proposing to Sell - In instructions to tenderers were requested to quote their highest offer indicating price per metric tonne inclusive of export incentive of F-O-B value of currently applicable as guarantee by Government of India which will always be to sellers benefit for handing over of rails F-O-B docks/F-A-S/F-O-B - Indian Port or C - I - F destination port tenderer was required to offer comments clause by clause on general conditions of tender and special conditions of tender either confirming acceptance of clauses or indicating deviation therefrom if any - It was further provided that contract will come into force from date buyers letter of credit is accepted by buyers sellers nominee - Held, In these circumstances even if correspondence shows that formalities necessary for a concluded contract have been satisfied and parties were ad idem by time letter of acceptance was written about which we do not wish to express any opinion there is no valid or binding contract because letter of acceptance on evidence before us is not by a person authorised to execute contracts for and on behalf of President of India - On evening before day judgement in case was due to be delivered an application was filed enclosing an affidavit was Director Railway Stores as also an affidavit of Managing Director of Respondent No -1 to take them in evidence and consider facts stated therein before judgement is delivered and if necessary to call for file and give a re-hearing - Appeal allowed.
Judgment
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.: - This appeal is by special leave. The question for consideration is whether there is a binding, valid and concluded contract between the appellants and the Respondents. On an application filed by the Respondents under section 20 of the Arbitration Act a single Judge of the Delhi High Court directed the appellants to file the arbitration agreement to refer the disputes between the parties arising under the contract to arbitrators. An appeal against that order to a Division Bench was dismissed.
2. In order to understand the scope of the controversy, a few facts may be stated. On the 21st March 1968, a notice of Global Tender No. 1 of 1968 was issued by the President of India, therein referred to as the Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) proposing to sell 80,000 tonnes of surplus released serviceable and scrap rails, as per details given in the schedule thereto, established buyers abroad or their accredited agents. It invited offers in respect thereof to be addressed to the President of India and sent to Shri R.N. Mubayi, Director, Railway Stores, Railway Board. With this notice were enclosed the general conditions of tender, special conditions of tender, instructions to tenderers, including proforma for performance guarantee and deed bonds as in clauses 4A and 4B shipping terms and schedule of stocks available as on 1st March 1968. In the general conditions the seller was defined to mean, the President of India acting through the Director, Railway Stores, Railway Board, unless the context otherwise provided. The delivery F.O.B. (Free on Board)/ F.A.S. (Free alongside ship) invoices and freight were dealt with in clause 9. The default clause in clause 11 provided that where a buyer fails to execute the contract the seller was to have power under the hand of the Director, Railway Stores, Railway Board, to declare the contract at an and at the risk and cost of the buyer. The special conditions of tender dealt with prices, quotations, payments, terms of shipment, weighment, basis of sales and handling at ports, force majeure, arbitration, legal jurisdiction, acceptance of offers and title and risk. In the instructions to tenderers, the tenderers were requested to quote their highest offer indicating the price per metric tonne inclusive of export incentive of 5 of F.O.B. value of currently applicable as guarantee by the Government of India which will always be to the sellers benefit for handing over of the rails F.O.B. docks/F.A.S./F.O.B. Indian Port or C. I. F. destination port. The tenderer was required to offer comments clause by clause on the general conditions of tender and the special conditions of tender either confirming acceptance of the clauses or indicating deviation therefrom if any. It was further provided that the contract will come into force from the date the buyers letter of credit is accepted by the buyers sellers nominee. In 4-A of these instructions the pro forma deed bond was given which was to be signed by the tenderer and the acceptance was to be signed for and on behalf of the President of India by the person designated for that purpose. Similarly, paragraph 4-B gave the proforma performance guarantee bond to be addressed to the President of India executed by the tenderer and accepted for and on behalf of the President of India by the person so designated. These terms and conditions also set out the shipping terms in detail, though a few of them were also mentioned in the special conditions under the headings, shipment, Terms of Shipping and Receiving Notice. It appears that the terms and conditions enclosed with the tender notice annexed to the petition filed in court were not full and complete. Consequently the appellant has annexed a true copy of the enclosures with the special leave petition and prayed that this may be admitted in evidence. As there was no dispute in respect of the contents thereof, we have allowed this prayer because without t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.