IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Devashis Baruah, J.
M/s Anmol India Ltd. And Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The North Eastern Coalfields Limited and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/5110 of 2013
Decided On : 21-12-2023
Spot e-Auction Scheme - Challenge to Clause 9.1 and 10 - [Clause 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] - The court discussed the provisions of the Spot e-Auction Scheme, 2007, including registration, bidding process, deposit of coal value, delivery procedure, refund of EMD, forfeiture of EMD, and general terms and conditions. The court emphasized the obligation of successful bidders to deposit the coal value and the consequences of non-deposit, as well as the procedure for seeking allotment of rake and the conditions for refund of coal value. The court also highlighted the force majeure conditions and the dispute resolution mechanism under the Scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner No.1 participated in e-Auctions on 12.03.2013 and 28.06.2013, deposited the coal value, but did not receive the coal due to force majeure conditions. The Petitioner sought compensation for non-delivery of coal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Scheme did not specify compensation for non-delivery, and the proper recourse for ascertaining loss was through arbitration as per Clause 11.12. The court rejected the claim for compensation and observed that the Respondents were not liable due to force majeure conditions.
Issues: 1. Entitlement to compensation for non-delivery of coal. 2. Entitlement to interest on the deposited coal value.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that compensation could only be paid based on loss sustained, and the proper recourse for ascertaining loss was through arbitration as per the Scheme. The court also held that the Petitioner was entitled to interest on the deposited coal value.
Final Decision: The court rejected the claim for compensation and held that the Petitioner was entitled to interest at 7.5% per annum on the deposited coal value.
JUDGMENT :
1. The four petitioners in the instant writ petition have conjointly challenged the Spot e-Auction Scheme, 2007 and more particularly Clause 9.1 and 10 by way of the instant writ petition. Individually, the Petitioner No.1 has sought for compensation from the Respondents in respect to non-delivery of coal in spite of receipt of the coal value deposit in relation to e-Auctions held on 12.03.2013 and 28.06.2013.
2. At the outset, it is relevant to take note of that the Spot e-Auction Scheme, 2007 as on date have been replaced by the e-Auction Scheme, 2022 which has been made effective from 01.03.2023 onwards. Under such circumstances, the question of any adjudication in respect to a scheme which is no longer in existence does not arise. However, the question remains as to whether the Petitioner No.1 would be entitled to compensation for non-delivery of coal in spite of the deposit of the coal value pursuant to the e-Auctions held on 12.03.2013 and 28.06.2013.
3. For a better understanding, it is relevant to take note of the Spot e-Auction Scheme, 2007 under which Scheme coal distribution through e-Auction was introduced. From a perusal of the Spot e-Auction Scheme, 2007 (for short “the Scheme”), it is mandated in Clause-2 that a prospective buyer is required to get himself registered with M/s MSTC Ltd. and M/s MJunction Services Ltd. for Road and Rail dispatches respectively who have been appointed by the Respondent No.1. It is relevant to take note of that for the purpose of registration, various formalities are required to be complied with as stated in Clause 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4. Clause 2.5 stipulates that all buyers having been registered with the service providers shall also have to furnish a non-interest bearing Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) @ Rs.500/- per tonne for coal having GCV more than 4300 Kcal/Kg and @ Rs.400/- per tonne for coal having GCV of 4300 Kcal/Kg. The manner in which the bidding process have to be carried out is stipulated in Clause-4. It is relevant to take note of that as per Clause 4.1, the registered Bidders shall be required to record their acceptance after login to the terms and conditions of the e-Auction before participation in the actual Bidding Process. Clause 4.2 mandates that before participating in an e-Auction, the bidders are to satisfy themselves with the quality of coal being offered from source. The manner in which the bid is to be submitted has been further stipulated in Clause 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7. Clause 4.8 and 4.9 stipulates that as to how the bidding process shall be conducted.
4. Clause-5 stipulates the post e-Auction process. In terms with Clause 5.1, each successful bidder would be intimated through e-mail/SMS by M/s MSTC Ltd. and M/s MJunction Services Ltd. on the same date after the closure of the e-Auction. However, it shall be the responsibility of the buyer/bidder to personally see and download results displayed on the website on the same date after the close of the e-Auction. Clause 5.2 is of significance taking into account the issue involved. In terms with Clause 5.2, the successful bidders after e-Auction would be required to deposit the coal value at the respective offices mentioned in the said Clause within a period of 7 (seven) days after the date of closing of the e-Auction. Clause 5.3 mandates that the equivalent of the EMD of the successful bidder corresponding to the successful bid quantity shall be blocked and would be transferred to the Respondent No.1 by the M/s MSTC Ltd. and M/s MJunction Services Ltd. along with the bid sheet in respect of the successful bidders.
5. Clause-6 stipulates the terms of payment. In terms with Clause 6.1, the coal value is to be deposited in advance by the successful bidders and while computing the 100% of the coal value to be deposited, the EMD already deposited shall be taken into consideration or in other words, the bidders has to pay the remaining portion of the coal value after adjusting with the EMD. Clause 6.6 st
Forfeiture of earnest money must be reasonable, just, and based on actual loss suffered. The manner of cancellation and forfeiture should be fair and equitable.
Clause 11.8 mandates that upon being offered said coal, bidder cannot refuse on ground of non-suitability and/or sub-standard quality.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of the Supreme Court's decision, the liability of coal companies to refund excess amounts, and the statutory liability of the co....
The main legal point established is that in contractual matters, the court may intervene to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism by the government bodies, especially if the actions violate the equalit....
Court upheld prior ruling declaring e-auction scheme invalid, ordering refunds for excess payments collected by coal companies.
Presence of an arbitration clause would oust jurisdiction under Article 226.
The court established that a successful bidder in an e-auction must comply with the specified conditions, and failure to do so can result in forfeiture of bid security and debarment from future aucti....
The failure of a successful bidder to pay the balance auction price in a timely manner allows the Liquidator to forfeit the Earnest Money Deposit as per the terms of the auction process.
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.