IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Kashyapi L. & N. JV - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.6896 Of 2020
Decided On : 24-01-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Quashing of the impugned order – Petitioner sought extension of time for submission – Penalty or forfeiture – Petition has been filed by Petitioner- L&N JV under Article 226 seeking quashing of impugned order passed by Respondent No.2- Container Corporation of India – Vide impugned order, Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and other dues of Petitioner have been forfeited as also Petitioner has been debarred from participating in re-tender – Held, Court are of view that force majeure principle would not be applicable in this case, especially because it was not sole reason for non-compliance – Petitioners were also unsure because of ongoing writ petitions in related tender matters that did not have anything to do with tender in question – Same has also been highlighted in the letter reproduced above – Court are also helped in court view by following extract from M/s. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. v. Vedanta Limited & Anr., with which court agree – Court is of opinion that forfeiture of EMD by CONCOR is justified – However, it is made clear that debarment of Petitioner is only for re-tendering for same project in respect of which impugned order has been passed and there is no blacklisting or debarment by CONCOR qua Petitioner that would prevent it from participating in any future tenders – Disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
[Prathiba M. Singh, J.]
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Kashyapi L&N JV under Article 226 seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 28th August, 2020 passed by Respondent No.2- Container Corporation of India (hereinafter ‘CONCOR’). Vide the impugned order, the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and other dues of the Petitioner have been forfeited as also the Petitioner has been debarred from participating in re-tender.
3. CONCOR had issued an e-tender dated 19th November, 2019 for construction of three warehouses and allied works at MMLP, Barhi, Sonipat, Haryana. In response to the said e-tender, the Petitioner submitted its bid. The technical bids were opened on 13th December, 2019. Along with the bid, the Petitioner had also submitted an EMD to the tune of Rs.15,40,650/-.
4. The contract was awarded to the Petitioner vide Letter of Acceptance (LOA) dated 28th February, 2020 which was to be counter signed by the Petitioner and the same was accepted. As per the said letter, performance Bank Guarantee (BG) was to be submitted by the Petitioner in two parts. First part of the BG was to be submitted by the Petitioner for 5% of the contract value of Schedule A to I, for a sum of Rs.99,36,162/-. Second part of the BG amounting to 10% of the contract value of Schedule J for a sum of Rs.50,660/-. The said BG was to be submitted within 30 days from the LOA, which could be extended to 60 days.
5. However, on 19th February, 2020 itself, the Government of India had announced the triggering of the force majeure clause owing to the covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdowns. In view of the pandemic, on 9th April, 2020, the Petitioner sought extension of time for submission of the performance BG. Again, lockdowns were imposed and extended in view of the pandemic. During this entire period, CONCOR continued to give extensions to the Petitioner for submission of the performance BG vide letters dated 7th April, 2020, and 1st May, 2020.
6. Since the BGs were not supplied and furnished, on 28th July, 2020, CONCOR put the Petitioner to notice, to submit the performance BG, the work plan and also start the work within two days, however, the Petitioner chose not to do so. On 10th August, 2022, another reminder was given by CONCOR and it was made clear in the said letter that if the performance BG is not furnished, the EMD would be forfeited. Finally, on 28th August, 2020, the EMD was forfeited vide the impugned order and the Petitioner was debarred from participating in the re-tender of that particular project. The impugned order is set out below:
The above-mentioned work has been awarded to you vide LOA no. CON/EP/MMLP/Barhi/Ph-II/2019 dt. 28.02.2020 with an advice to submit Performance Guarantee within 30 days of issue of LOA without interest and within 60 days with penal interest of 15% per annum.
As requested by you and considering COVID-19 pandemic situation, date of submission of Performance Guarantee has been extended and same has been communicated to you. Kindly refer this office various letters dt. 28.07.2020 10.08.2020 & 21.08.2020, vide which you have been advised to submit performance guarantee of Rs. 99,36,162/- latest by 24.07.2020 without interest and by 24.08.2020 with penal interest of 15% per annum beyond 24.07.2020.
As you have failed to submit Performance Guarantee, despite number of reminders. above mentioned contract has been terminated duly forfeiting EMD and other dues, if any payable against this contract. Further, you have been debarred from participating in re-tender of this work as per clause 1(4) of CCC.
Kindly acknowledge the receipt of this letter”
7. It is the case of the Petitioner that it was prevented from furnishing the performance BG due to closures of the Bank, affected by the lockdown, and since the force majeure clause had been triggered, as per the General Conditions of the Contract, no penalty or forfeiture cou
Point of Law : It is the settled position in law that a Force Majeure clause is to be interpreted narrowly and not broadly. Parties ought to be compelled to adhere to contractual terms and conditions....
Occurrence of commercial difficulty, inconvenience or hardship in performance of the conditions agreed to in the contract can provide no justification to wriggle out of the contractual obligations wh....
The court affirmed that failure to comply with contractual obligations cannot be excused by force majeure claims where the party did not act with due diligence, emphasizing the need for adherence to ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conclusion of a contract can occur upon the award of work, and non-compliance with tender and contract terms can justify contract terminat....
The COVID-19 Act suspends contractual obligations during its operation, rendering notices of default and termination void, with unconscionability as a valid ground to restrain calls on performance bo....
An unconditional bank guarantee can only be interdicted in cases of fraud or irretrievable injustice, and commercial difficulties do not excuse a party from performing its contractual obligations.
Debarment or blacklisting must be proportionate to the default committed by the bidder. Proper reasons must be provided for blacklisting, and the principles of natural justice must be followed. Black....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the terms and conditions of the tender notice in commercial transactions, and the court's interpretation of the Gener....
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.