SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH
M/s. B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd.- Appellant
Versus
Ajoy Mehta & Another - Respondent
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.245 OF 2007 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.4613 OF 2006
Date of Judgment : 19-12-2008
Judgment :-
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. This contempt proceeding has been initiated against respondent Nos.1 and 2 for alleged wilful disobedience of this Courts order dated 31.10.2006, the operative portion whereof reads as under:
"...We, therefore, intend to give another opportunity to MAHAGENCO. It shall consider the offer of Appellant upon consideration of the matter afresh, as to whether it even now fulfils the essential tender conditions. If it satisfies the terms of the tender conditions, the contract may be awarded in its favour for a period of one year; but such contract shall take effect after one month from the date of the said agreement so as to enable the private Respondents herein to wind up their business. This order is being passed in the interest of MAHAGENCO as also the private Respondents herein."
2. The Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. (for short "MAHAGENCO") issued a notice inviting tender, inter alia, for coal liaisoning, quality and quantity supervision of its thermal power station. One of the conditions laid down therefor is as under:
"(ii) The Bidder should have executed the work of total minimum quantity of 5 (Five) Million Metric Tons per year for preceding 5 years. Besides this bidder should have executed the work of total quantity of 10 (ten) Million MTs in any of the preceding 5 (Five) years. Above execution of work should be on behalf of State Electricity Board and/or NTPC and/or other State or Central Undertaking and/or the private Power Generating Companies as their liaison agent/coal agent, with regard to receipt and supply of the coal including supervision on dispatch, loading, movement of the coal upto destination by Railway only."
The term "year" occurring therein is said to be the financial year. Petitioner along with various others submitted its tender, inter alia, on the premise that the petitioner did not fulfill the essential conditions of having transported the quantity of minimum five lakh tonnes of coal for the preceding five years, its offer was not accepted.
3. A writ petition was filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which having been dismissed, Civil Appeal bearing No. 4613 of 2006 was preferred by the petitioner upon obtaining special leave. One of the questions which arose for consideration before this Court was as to whether MAHAGENCO committed a serious error in not taking into account the quantity of coal supplied by the petitioner to the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited; as it appears from its letter dated 15.06.2005 that the petitioner had supplied the following quantity of coal:
By a judgment and order dated 31.10.2006, this Court held:
"It is, therefore, evident that total quantity of 62,64,135 metric tones of coal had been handled by Appellant for them.
The intention of introduction of the said clause becomes self-evident from the aforementioned note. It may be true, as was observed by the High Court, that the Respondents in the tender documents did not categorically state that the block of 365 days in respect of handling of coal by the tenderes shall be taken into consideration. It is also true that the Corporation must be held to be aware as to what was the true intent and purport of the said term."
4. It was, however, found that other tenderers, viz., M/s. Nair Coal Services Ltd., Nagpur, M/s. Nareshkumar & Co. Ltd., Nagpur and M/s. Karamchand Thapar & Brs. Ltd., Mumbai had formed a cartel. Alleged contemnor Shri Ajoy Mehta, Managing Director of MAHAGENCO (Respondent No. 1 herein) in a note dated 19.08.2005 stated as under:
"On perusal of rates of M/s Nair Coal Services Ltd., Nagpur, M/s Nareshkumar & Co Ltd., Nagpur and M/s Karamchand Thapar & Brs. Ltd., Mumbai, it is apparent that they have formed a cartel. The rates quoted by these firms are nearly 51 crs. to 52 crs. more than that quoted by LT. As a goodwill gesture the above parties were called for negotiations. However, they have refused to match the L1 rates.
In view of above it is in
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.