Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(J&K) 205

JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Sunil Hali, J.
Deccan Charters Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
CEO, SMVDSB & Anr. -Resopndent
CIMA No.189/2011, CMP No.352/2011, CMP no.341/2011 c/w CMP No. 366/2011 in CIMA No. 194/2011, CMPNo.351/2011, CMP No.347/2011, APCIV No.89/2011, CMP No.03/2011 in CIMA No.190/2011, CMP No.342/2011, Caveat No. 381/2011.
Decided On : 27-04-2011

Advocates Appeared:
Mr.K.S.Johal, Advocate for appellant in CIMA no.189/2011., Mr.Virender Bhat, Advocate with Mr.S.S.Ahmed, Advocate for appellant in APCIV no.89/2011 in CIMA no.190/2011., Mr.D.C.Raina, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rohit Kohli, Advocate and Mr.Anil Verma, Advocate for petitioner in CIMA no.194/2011., Mr.Atul Nanda, Sr.Adv.with Ms.Rameeza Hakeem, Advocate for petitioner in CIMA no.190/2011., Mr.G.S.Thakur, Advocate for applicant in CMP no.395/2011 in CIMA no.189/2011., Mr.K.S.Johal, Advocate for respondents in CIMA nos.190/2011 and 194/2011., Mr.D.C.Raina, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anil Verma, Advocate for respondent in CIMA nos.189/2011 and 190/2011.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for cautious exercise of granting injunction and the necessity for clear and satisfactory grounds.

Headnote:
Tender - Contract Dispute - Condition no.7 of the NIT - [7(a), 7(b), 7(c)] - The court analyzed the rejection of the technical bid by the Board based on condition no.7 of the NIT. The trial court directed the Board to open the financial bid of the plaintiff and negotiate for the contract, which was found to be beyond the scope of an injunction application. The court held that the trial court's direction was not in line with Order 39 Rules-1 and 2 CPC and decreed the suit without putting the parties to trial. The judgment emphasized the need for cautious exercise of granting injunction and the requirement for clear and satisfactory grounds. The court also highlighted the issue of eligibility and the necessity to prove the transfer of assets and liability during the trial. The judgment set aside the trial court's order and directed a fresh hearing of the injunction application.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, Deccan Charters Ltd., filed a civil suit against Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board after its technical bid was rejected for a helicopter service contract. The trial court directed the Board to open the financial bid of the plaintiff and negotiate for the contract, which was found to be beyond the scope of an injunction application.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the trial court's direction was not in line with the procedural rules and decreed the suit without putting the parties to trial. It emphasized the need for cautious exercise of granting injunction and the requirement for clear and satisfactory grounds.
Issues: The issues included the scope of an injunction application, the eligibility of the plaintiff, and the necessity to prove the transfer of assets and liability during the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court's direction was not in line with procedural rules and decreed the suit without putting the parties to trial. It emphasized the need for cautious exercise of granting injunction and the requirement for clear and satisfactory grounds.
Final Decision: The judgment set aside the trial court's order and directed a fresh hearing of the injunction application.

1. Three appeals have been preferred against order dated 31.03.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Reasi, one being CIMA no. 189/2011 filed by Deccan Charters Ltd. another being CIMA no.194/2011 filed by Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board and third being CIMA no.190/2011 filed by M/s Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. The facts in brief are as under:-

2. Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board") invited tenders from reputed and registered Aviation Companies having a fleet of minimum two airworthy light helicopters endorsed on its non-scheduled operators permit for flight operations in the air space of J&K, from Katra to Sanjichhat and back utilizing the heliports at Katra and Sanjichhat purely on leave and licence basis, for a period of three consecutive years i.e. from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2014. The helicopters will carry Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Yatris to and from Katra and Sanjichhat for darshan at the Holy Cave. Tenders were invited for turn-key operations in a two bid format-Technical and Financial each filled in separately and properly sealed. The technical bids were to be opened by the Tender Committee in presence of the bidders, who may choose to be present on 17.03.2011 at 3.30 p.m. The date of opening of Financial Bids would be intimated only to the eligible short listed tenderers after evaluation of Technical Bids. NIT also contains various other terms and conditions.

3. The condition no.7 of the NIT is relevant in the present controversy, which is reproduced as under:-

"7. The Bidder Company must fulfill the following eligibility conditions.

(a) The Bidder must have minimum flying experience of 5 years with each of the flying pilots possessing a minimum mountain flying experience of 1500 hours as on 01.03.2011;

(b) The Bidder must have minimum fleet of two (2) airworthy helicopters, endorsed on its NSOP for Katra Sanjichhat sector (other than its accidental helicopter(s) which are not to be counted) and cleared/approved by DGCA for flight operations.

(c)."

4. At the time of evaluation of technical bid, plaintiff-Deccan Charters Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'DCL') was found to be ineligible as it did not possess the requisite flying experience of five years as mentioned in clause 7(a) of the NIT. Aggrieved by the order of the appellant-Board, a civil suit has been filed before the District Judge, Reasi wherein following reliefs are sough t:-

"Suit for declaration declaring the decision taken by the defendants whereby the Technical bid of the plaintiff has been rejected in respect of the allotment of contract in terms of the tender Notification no.CO/ADM/662/3225 dated 23.02.2011.

AND

The plaintiff's financial bid declined to be not opened for the contract of providing Helicopter Service for Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine w.e.f. 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2014.

WITH

Consequential relief of mandatory/prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants.

i) to open the financial bid; ii) to allot the contract to anybody; and iii) execute agreement with anybody;

Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case deems fit and proper.

5. Along with the suit, an injunction application was also filed. In the said application, plaintiff-Deccan Charters Ltd, sought the following reliefs:-

"i) The defendants/non-applicant may kindly be restrained from opening the financial bids much less allot the contract to any body.

ii) Enter into any agreement in respect of the contract in question with any body on the basis of tender notice dated February 23,2011; and

iii) The plaintiff may kindly be allowed to continue to operate the Helicopter service till the final disposal of the main suit.

iv) Such other additional or alternative order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff/applicants and against the defendants/non-applicants."

6. The trial court after hearing the parties in the injunction application directed the Board to open the financial bid of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis