IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OFASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
VIJAY BISHNOI, C.J., N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
M/s D.G. Raj Highway Services And Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The Union Of India and 7 Ors. – Respondents
WA 190 of 2022
Decided on : 27-11-2024
(A) Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy, 2014 - Clause 8(a) and (b) - Lease contract - The appellant, a registered leaseholder, failed to commence loading within the stipulated time after the Letter of Acceptance was issued, leading to termination of the contract and forfeiture of the security deposit. The court upheld the Railway authorities' decision, emphasizing the revenue loss caused by the delay. (Paras 21, 22, 30)
(B) Natural Justice - The court ruled that the forfeiture of the security deposit and debarment from future tenders did not violate principles of natural justice as the appellant was given ample opportunities to comply with the contract terms. (Paras 20, 24)
JUDGMENT :
N. Unni Krishnan Nair. J
Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. G. Islam, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.
2. The present Intra Court Appeal has been instituted, assailing the Judgment & Order dated 21.04.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)710/2022.
3. The appellant herein, who is a category-A registered lease holder of Tinsukia Division, NF Railway had submitted his bid in pursuance to an NIT dated 25.08.2021, issued by the Tinsukia Division, NF Railway for leasing of 24.00 tonne VPH by Train No. 05960/05959, Kamrup Express Special from Dibrugarh Railway Station to Howrah Railway Station and back on Round Trip basis. The bid of the petitioner, having been found to be suitable, the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Tinsukia, vide communication dated 08.10.2021, issued a Letter of Acceptance (LoA) in respect to the petitioner, accepting his bid for leasing of the 24 tonne VPH by Train No. 05960/05959, Kamrup Express. In terms of the said LoA, the petitioner was to furnish the Security Deposit within 15 days from the date of issue of the LoA. The petitioner was also required to execute an agreement. The LoA dated 08.10.2021, further specified that all other Terms and Conditions of the tender documents shall remain applicable. The appellant herein had not furnished the Security Deposit within the time frame so mandated in the LoA and had only submitted the same on 05.11.2021. The Security Deposit being required to be furnished within 15(fifteen) days from the date of issue of the LoA and loading also being required to be commenced within a period of 15(fifteen) days w.e.f. the date of issue of the LoA, the competent authority vide communication dated 26.11.2021, accorded his approval to the delayed submission of Security Deposit money as well as with regard to the delay occasioning in commencement of loading of the leased 24 tonne VPH by the train involved, thereby condoning the same.
4. It is to be noted that although the LoA was issued to the appellant on 08.10.2021, it had not commenced loading within 15 days as mandated by the provisions contained in the NIT dated 25.08.2021. Vide the said communication dated 26.11.2021, the appellant was further requested to immediately furnish the intermediate loading/unloading points so that allotment order may be issued.
5. The Railway authorities thereafter, on receipt of the response from the petitioner in pursuance of the communication dated 26.11.2021, proceeded vide communication dated 29.11.2021 to issue an allotment order to the appellant herein, for loading of 24 tonne VPH by the train involved. Vide the said communication dated 29.11.2021, the appellant was directed to start loading of the leased out 24 tonne VPH of the train involved by 07.12.2021.
6. At this stage, it is to be noted that the appellant herein had issued a communication dated 08.11.2021 and therein, by justifying the delay occasioning in starting of the loading operations by it, had undertaken that the loading would be started w.e.f. 21.11.2021. It is seen from the materials brought on record that the appellant had not started the loading operations in spite of lapse of considerable period of time since the date of issuance of the LoA. The Railway authorities vide a communication dated 17.12.2021 had required the appellant to attend the Office of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Tinsukia, on 20.12.2021, for signing the contract agreement for the leased 24 tonne VPH which was said to be ready in all respects. It is seen that the appellant had not complied with the requirement as made of it vide the communication dated 17.12.2021, leading to the Railway authorities to issue a further communication on 21.12.2021, requiring the appellant to attend the Office of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager on 22.12.2021 for signing of the contract agreement and for commencement of the loading operations
M/S Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.
The court affirmed that failure to commence loading within the stipulated time justified contract termination and forfeiture of the security deposit.
Clause 8(a) stipulates that the commencement of loading has to be done within 15 days from the date of allotment of the contract.
The court established that termination of a lease contract without proper notice violates principles of natural justice and contractual obligations.
The court affirmed that failure to demonstrate actual loss precludes the forfeiture of security deposits, underscoring the principle that a breach must cause substantial damages to warrant penalties.
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....
Point of law: Not only is the writ jurisdiction of this Court invoked in a purely contractual matter, having no colour of public law and the writ remedy is thus not maintainable.
Government Contract – A Letter of Intent (LoL) merely indicates party’s intention to enter into a contract with other party in future and is not intended to bind either party ultimately to enter into....
The court ruled that claims for damages in breach of contract require proof of actual loss, which was not established by the plaintiffs, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
The court applied the doctrine of verba chartarum fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem to interpret the tender document against the respondent, highlighting the principle of resolving ambiguity in ....
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.