K. Ramamoorthy, J.

( 1 ) THE facts of the case present a situation which can be termed as suigeneris. So far as I could look up I could not lay my hands on any case which has resemblence to this case. This case poses a challenge to Lawyers and Judges and they have to be ready to meet the demands of changing times on account of Technological and Industrial Development in all fields of human endeavour, internal and international. This case also shows how the people for the purpose of offering services to the community in a variety of ways have to depend on the general principles of Contract and Specific Relief. The ambitions, aspirations, desires and angularities and the urge to achieve better things naturally create problems in the real functioning of the systems evolved by them and the people expect the Courts to solve them so that the systems brought about by them for doing something to the Society work smoothly and peacefully and persons concerned may act accordingly to law laid down by the Courts.

( 2 ) I am happy to place on record my sincere appreciation of the able, incisive and effective arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. They have made a lot of research and a good deal of hard work had gone in. They put forward their respective view points with considerable skill and dexterity. I was greatly benefited by their consummate arguments. From the arguments advanced I could see that lawyers also felt the pinch, the facts posing a novel situation. They converted an insipid position into a very interesting and absorbing one. The learned Counsel for the parties argued the matter for a considerable length of time and the lengthy arguments served to fine tune the points that have arisen for consideration.

( 3 ) INDIA Habitat Centre, hereinafter referred to as the centre , is stated to be located in Lodhi Estate for the purpose of promoting on no profit no loss basis a Habitat Centre for Organisations drawn from various sources for the benefit of the community and there are about 35 Members in the Centre. The Centre was allotted about 9 acres of land, a very large area for this purpose and it is stated that substantial constructions have been erected, spending about Rs. 45 crores. As various offices are located in the Complex, the Centre naturally had to make arrangements for services for persons who come to the office and also the officers and employees in the various offices in the defendant Centre. The Centre by itself could not apparently mobilise enough people to offer services to persons coming to the Complex and, therefore, they thought of having an independent body to do the service activities of the Centre. With this object in view, on the 21st of December, 1992 the defendant issued public notice inviting tenaers for operation of the facilities at the defendant s Centre. This is the genesis of the present dispute.

( 4 ) ON 5. 2. 1993 the plaintiff wrote to the Centre stating that the plaintiff had not been able to inspect the basement and a detailed studies could not be carried out within a short time, therefore, the plaintiff would be sending the bid with these reservations. Now on 8. 2. 1993 the plaintiff submitted its bid to the Centre giving the details of the proposals for rendering the services. On 22. 4. 1993 a note was submitted to the President of the Centre with reference to this matter. In the note, it is stated "

"a meeting was organised on June 8, 1992 at the Vigyan Bhavan Annexe presided over by the then President of the Shri R. K. Bhargava where a presentation was made to the Hotelliers explaining the design of the complex and the nature of the operations. Subsequently after further discussions a set of literature was sent to each possible operator for these facilities requesting them to forward proposals to IHC with regard to the running of these facilities and also make their offer as to the financial aspects in terms of the capital cost and profit sharing with IHC. The Governing Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document