SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6873

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
KK VIDYUT – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY OF RAILWAYS – Respondent
WPL/35600/2024



Advocates:
Mr. Subhash Jha a/w Siddharth Jha, Navneetha Krishnan, Apeksha Sharma, Sumeet Upadhyay, Ashish Saxena i/by Law Global for the petitioner. Mr. N. R. Bubna for the respondents.

Submission of forged bank guarantees constitutes an irremediable breach justifying termination of the contract under Clause 62 of the General Conditions of Contract.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - General Conditions of Contract - Clause 62 - Termination of contract - Petitioner challenged the termination notice for submitting forged bank guarantees, which constituted a serious breach of trust and justified termination under Clause 62 - The respondents provided multiple opportunities to the petitioner to rectify defaults, which were ignored - The contract was rendered void ab initio due to fraud. (Paras 12, 34, 54)

(B) Natural Justice - Principles of natural justice do not apply when facts are admitted and only one conclusion is legally tenable - The petitioner failed to substantively respond to allegations of forgery despite multiple show-cause notices. (Paras 42, 44)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was awarded a contract for railway infrastructure development but was terminated after allegations of submitting forged bank guarantees were made. The petitioner failed to provide satisfactory responses to the show-cause notices issued by the respondents. (Paras 1, 12)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the termination was justified due to the irremediable nature of the default, as the submission of forged documents undermines the integrity of the contractual relationship. (Paras 34, 57)

Issues: The main issues were whether the termination was justified based on the submission of forged bank guarantees and whether the principles of natural justice were violated. (Paras 22, 42)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the submission of forged bank guarantees constituted fraud, which is an irremediable breach justifying termination without the need for further notice. The principles of natural justice were not breached as the petitioner had multiple opportunities to respond. (Paras 36, 57)

Result: Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

AMIT BORKAR, J. RESERVED ON : DECEMBER 17, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : DECEMBER 19, 2024 1 JUDGMENT: (PER AMIT BORKAR, J.)

1. The petitioner, invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the notice of termination dated 30 October 2024, issued by the respondents. The termination pertains to the contract awarded to the petitioner in furtherance of a tender process concerning the provision of Goods Shed facilities, construction of buildings, and the development of critical railway infrastructure.

2. The relevant facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this writ petition are summarized below to provide context to the dispute.

On 1 June 2023, the respondents issued e-Tender Notice No. CAOC-12-2023, inviting bids for a comprehensive railway infrastructure development project. The project encompassed the provision of Goods Shed facilities, construction of a track machine rest house, construction of an E1 building, platform surfacing work, supply of ballast, completion of balance earthwork in ANG, VLD, and RRI yards, and the construction of four major bridges at the Manmad entry arrangement in connection with the Daund-Manmad Doubling Project.

3. The petitioner, being one of the bidders, was awarded the contract after meeting the eligibility criteria and completing the tender formalities. In compliance with the contractual requirements, the petitioner furnished a performance bank guarantee on 9 November 2023 for an amount of 7,66,63,700/- issued by IDBI Bank Ltd. This guarantee was verified by the respondents through their communication dated 21 November 2023. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted additional bank guarantees issued by Yes Bank Ltd., details of which are as follows: 8,43,30,100/- dated 16 April 2024; 15,33,230/- dated 17 May 2024; and 8,58,63,330/- dated 17 May 2024.

4. All these guarantees were subjected to the respondents’ standard verification procedures and were confirmed to be genuine at that stage. Upon completion of these formalities, the petitioner commenced the execution of the work, deploying resources, machinery, and manpower at the designated project sites. According to the petitioner, the progress of the work was satisfactory and exceeded the cumulative value of all the submitted bank guarantees. The petitioner asserts that it adhered to all contractual terms and complied with the work schedules and timelines stipulated under the contract.

5. On 18 September 2024 and 20 September 2024, the respondents issued letters to IDBI Bank and Yes Bank seeking re-verification of the bank guarantees submitted by the petitioner. This was done despite the fact that these guarantees had already been verified during the initial stages of the project.

6. Subsequently, based on material received by the respondents, a show-cause notice dated 25 September 2024 was issued to the petitioner. The show-cause notice alleged that the bank guarantees submitted by the petitioner were forged and fabricated documents. It was contended that these guarantees had been fraudulently submitted by the petitioner to fulfill the performance guarantee and mobilization advance requirements under the contract. The respondents relied upon Clause 62 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), which mandates the submission of valid performance guarantees and authorizes the respondents to terminate the contract, forfeit the bid security, and recover other dues in case of non- compliance. The notice further warned the petitioner that the alleged forgery constituted a serious breach of trust and misrepresentation, which rendered the petitioner ineligible to continue with the project. The respondents also invoked the relevant provisions of the contract to debar the petitioner from participating in any re-tender process for the same work.

7. In response, the petitioner submitted a preliminary reply dated 27 September 2024. It was stated that due to the arrest of its director by in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top