2002 Supreme(Raj) 1682
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
K.S.Rathore, J.
Kromex International (P) LTD - Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals LTD and Another - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4468 of 2002.
Decided On : 16-08-2002
For the Petitioner:Pares Kuhad, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R.K. Agarwal and R.C. Joshi, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that no interference was required by the court in the concluded contractual matter, and the court could not grant indulgence based on the applicable judgments.
Headnote:
Contract - Tender Dispute - Companies Act, 1956 - [Companies Act, 1956] - [Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(e), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(h), Section 2(1)(i), Section 2(1)(j), Section 2(1)(k), Section 2(1)(l), Section 2(1)(m), Section 2(1)(n), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(p), Section 2(1)(q), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(s), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(v), Section 2(1)(w), Section 2(1)(x), Section 2(1)(y), Section 2(1)(z)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, particularly the sections related to the incorporation and business activities of companies. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the petitioner's status as a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and its authority to participate in the tender process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, sought to quash the contract awarded to respondent No. 2 in a tender dispute. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 2 was not an authorized dealer of the international company for the supply of OTR tyres, and the respondent No. 1 ignored communications confirming the petitioner's authorization.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that no interference was required in the contractual matter as the contract had been concluded and work order awarded. The court emphasized that the judgment referred to by the respondents was fully applicable to the case, and no indulgence could be granted by the court.
Issues: The main issue was whether respondent No. 2 was eligible to participate in the tender, given the petitioner's claim of being the only authorized agent in India for the international company's OTR tyres.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the letters and communications from the international company, which revealed that the petitioner was authorized by the office of the Sales Director South Asia and Middle East, but not directly by the manufacturer. The court also considered the conditions incorporated in the tender document regarding the supply of OTR tyres.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
1. - Petitioner filed this present writ petition seeking writ order or direction to quash and set aside the award of the contract awarded Rn favour of respondent No. 2 in pursuance to the tender document dated 19.4.2002 for supply of the OTR tyres and further seek direction to restrain respondent No. 1 from taking any action, in the matter of, in the process of and in terms of awarding the contract in favour of respondent No. 2 or, in alternate to restrain respondent No. 2 to take any action i.e. supply order of the OTR tyres in terms of the said Tender, alternatively prayed for cancellation of the award of contract in favour of respondent No. 2 and issue direction to award the contract in favour of the petitioner or in the alternative to re-invite the tender for supply of OTR tyres with other prayers.
2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 at Delhi and having its registered office at Kashmere Gate, New Delhi and carrying on the business, trading, importing, handling, distributing, exporting or otherwise dealing in all kinds of automobiles parts, components and accessories therein including, in particular, tyre, tube, sole, retreading of tyre and rubber and all other spare parts.
3. Respondent No. 1 issued a tender notice which was published in the daily newspaper Rajasthan Patrika dated 25.4.2002 and in response to this short term tender notice dated 19.4.2002 the petitioner also participated in the tender. The contract was awarded in favour of respondent as the offer of respondent No. 2 is less than the petitioner's offer.
4. Petitioner purchased the tender documents, complied with the various terms and conditions, duly filled in the same and submitted the same to the respondent No. 1 through Its General Manager (MM) at their Udaipur Office vide letter dated 14.5.2002 in two parts as stipulated in the notice for inviting tender and he also deposited the requisite amount through Demand Draft in favour of respondent No. 1 towards earnest money against the tender as per the stipulated terms and conditions.
5. In view of the clause A of the short term tender notice condition the petitioner also submitted the authorisation letter dated 2.5.2002 of the foreign manufacturing company/principle of the General Brand OTR Tyres to be supplied under the tender namely M/s. Continental General Tire Inc. Charlatte, USA through its Continental Business Unit International, A Department of Continental A.G. of Hanover, Federal republic of Germany and this authorisation was addressed to the General Manager of the respondent No. 1.
6. Apart from the above the petitioner furnished requisite documents for example copy of income tax clearance certificate, copy of sales tax certificate, copy of sales tax clearance certificate, copy of Importer-exporter and copy of listed catalogue.
7. Petitioner submits that total four suppliers participated and technical bid was opened on 17.5.2002 and Price Bid was opened on 18.6.2002.
8. At the time of opening of the Technical Bid, the petitioner came to know that the Respondent No. 2 has also submitted its tender by stating that their company Is authorised by the said foreign manufacturing company M/s. Continental General Tire Inc. and the petitioner immediately approached the said foreign manufacturing company to seek clarification about the so called authorisation given by them to the respondent No. 2.
9. The company through its fax message on 27.5.2002 sent to the respondent No. 2 informed that in respect of the above mentioned tender their authorised representative for the supply of general brand of OTR tyres is the petitioner company namely Kromax International Pvt. Ltd. and the respondent No. 2 namely M/s Satelite Products (P) Ltd. have no official authorisation. Not only by this but vide Annex. 7 dated 31.5.2001 issued by the Sales Director South Asia and Middle East Continental Business Unit International again reiterated this fact that the petitioner company is only th
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
