JUDGMENT - S.S. NIJJAR, J.:---This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs with a prayer for a declaration to the effect that there is no valid agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 for supplies by the plaintiffs to the defendant No. 1 of R.S. Joists as per the order dated 8th/10th July, 1995 on the terms and conditions contained in the tender being Ex. B to the plaint. Further the defendant No. 1 is not entitled to call upon the plaintiffs to make supplies in terms of the aforesaid order. It is also prayed that the defendant No. 1 is not entitled to invoke the Bank Guarantee dated 3rd December, 1994 and receive a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs or any other amount which is issued by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1 for and on behalf of the plaintiffs. There is also a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from invoking the Bank Guarantee dated 3rd December, 1994. Permanent Injunction is also prayed for against the defendant No. 2 from making payment of Rs. 5 lakhs on the basis of the Bank Guarantee.

2.This Notice of Motion has been taken out for interim reliefs which are also sought as final reliefs. Prayer Clause (a) is for an injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from in any manner insisting upon or compelling the plaintiffs to supply the R.S. Joists on the basis of the order dated 8th/10th July, 1995. Prayer Clause (b) seeks an injunction against the defendant No. 1 restraining him from invoking the Bank Guarantee. Prayer Clause (c) seeks an injunction restraining the defendant No. 2 from making payment of Rs. 5 lakhs on the basis of the aforesaid order. An affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion has been filed. In this affidavit, the prayers made in the suit have been repeated. Thereafter it is stated that the averments made in the plaint are reiterated. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the Notice of Motion be made absolute.

3.The defendant No. 1 invited tenders in December, 1994. The said tenders were to be received on 7th December, 1994. Opening of the tender was on 8th December, 1994. The tenders were valid for acceptance upto and inclusive of last date of the calendar month covering the date of completion of 180 days from the date of opening of the tender i.e. upto 30th June, 1995. The plaintiffs submitted the tender by their letter dated 6th December, 1994. In the tender document, the plaintiffs have mentioned the name of Mr. R.M. Chopra and Mr. Raj Chopra as the Bombay contact persons. Mr. R.M. Chopra is mentioned as the agent of the plaintiffs at Item No. 8 of the tender document. The address of Mr. R.M. Chopra is also given. But no power of attorney has been executed in favour of Mr. R.M. Chopra, so as to constitute him as the agent of the plaintiffs. Thus, Mr. R.M. Chopra was only the contact person of the plaintiffs in Bombay. In fact, one Mr. Mukul Chander was directed to submit the tender documents and to participate in the tender proceedings. The terms of the tender required that the tenderer should pay earnest money at 3% of the offer value upto Rs. 1.75 lakhs and thereafter at 1% of the balance offer value limited to Rs. 5 lakhs. The earnest money shall be paid in cash or by demand draft, it is provided that the earnest money deposit shall be forfeited (i) in case tenderer withdraws the tender/offer during the validity period; (ii) in case the tenderer fails to pay the security deposit if the contract is awarded. The tenderers of some categories were exempted from payment of earnest money deposit. It included all Government and semi Government institutions, small scale industrial unit registered with the Director of Industries, Maharashtra, small scale units registered with the National Small Industries Corporation. The category for exemption is "The firm having a valid permanent Bank Guarantee of Rs. 5,00,000/ (Rs. Five Lakhs) with the Board". The defendant No. 2 was requested to issue a permanent Bank Guarantee in favour of the defe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document