Anil Dev Singh, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 read with clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from the order of the learned single Judge dated March 24, 1995, in IA No. 10561 of 1994 in Suit No. 2538 of 1994 whereby the application of the appellants (defendants in the suit) under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short"cpc") has been dismissed. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:

( 2 ). The first appellant, a public sector Government Company invited tenders on July 24,1994 in prescribed form for handling iron and steel materials at its Stockyard at Naini, Allahabad. According to clause 2. 1 of the invitation to tender,a tenderer was required to have experience, in its own name and style, of handling at least 20,000 MT of steel materials in any of the preceding five financial years. Clause 7 of the invitation to tender stipulated that the tender shall be kept valid for a period of 90 days from the date of opening of Part I of the tender and any modification, variation, clarification made thereto by the tenderer during the above period shall be construed as withdrawal of the tender in which event the first appellant shall forfeit the earnest money deposit without any reference to the tenderer.

( 3 ). Pursuant to the tender notice, first respondent (plaintiff in the suit) submitted tender documents on or about August 17,1994 (page 33 of the appeal paper book ). Besides, the first respondent there were five others who submitted their tenders. On August 18,1994 Part I of the tenders were opened. Therefore, the validity of the tenders were to expire on November 16,1994 in accordance with the terms of the tender. Since the appellants did not open part II of the tenders, the first respondent filed a suit for damages against them claiming that all the conditions of the tender were fulfilled by it including deposit of a sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 as earnest money with the first appellant. It is also asserted that the bid of the first respondent was the lowest and the appellants with the intention to benefit M/s. S. K. Sharma, who was handling the work on ad hoc basis w. e. f. May 23, 1993, did not open Part II of the bids. In the plaint it is further averred that an undertaking was given by the third appellant to the Allahabad High Court that fresh tenders would be invited and the same would be finalised within six months from May 23, 1993, the date when M/s. S. K. Sharma was allowed to handle the work on adhoc basis. It was pointed out that the undertaking given to the Allahabad High Court was not carried out by the appellants.

( 4 ). The appellants filed the written statement and an application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC. It is claimed by the appellants that the plaint discloses no cause of action and the same should be rejected.

( 5 ). The learned single Judge taking up the aforesaid application of the appellants negatived the contention of the appellants and held that the plaint does disclose a cause of action. The learned single Judge noted that it was the case of the first respondent that Part II of the tenders were not opened by the appellants with the ulterior motive to facilitate the grant of extension to M/s. S. K. Sharma to handle the work on ad hoc basis. In the circumstances the learned single Judge rejected the application of the appellants on March 24, 1995. It is this order of the learned single Judge which has been questioned before us.

( 6 ). Dr. Ghosh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants, relied on clauses 7. 0 and 8. 0 of the invitation to tender according to which the first appellant reserved the right to accept or reject any or all the tenders or apportion the work amongst the different tenderers in any manner without assigning any reason whatsoever. He contended that having agreed to the terms of the tender, the first respondent was ill advised in filing the suit for damages. He pointed out that fresh tenders were invited on Febr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document