IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO s. 2864 OF 2007, 3563, 3564 AND 3669 OF 2012 Date:10-02-2026 CRP 2864 OF 2007 Between Union of India, rep. by its secretary Department of Telecommunications New Delhi and others …Petitioners and M/s Sinclaire Infratech Pvt.Ltd …Respondent CRP 3563 OF 2012 Between Union of India, rep. by its secretary Department of Telecommunications New Delhi and others …Petitioners and M/s MIC Electronics Limited …Respondent CRP 3564 OF 2012 Between Union of India, rep. by its secretary Department of Telecommunications New Delhi and others …Petitioners and M/s ARM Limited …Respondent CRP 3669 OF 2012 Between Union of India, rep. by its secretary Department of Telecommunications New Delhi and others …Petitioners and M/s Phoenix Telecommunications Limited …Respondent This Court passed the following COMMON ORDER (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman)

Heard Mrs. T. Bala Jayashree, learned Counsel for petitioners and Mr. P. Vinayak Swamy, learned counsel for the respondent in C.R.P.No.2864 of 2007.

2. Despite service of notice, none appears for the respondent in C.R.P.Nos.3563 and 3669 of 2012.

3. Notice sent to the respondent in C.R.P. No 3564 of 2012 is returned unreserved with an endorsement ‘office shifted, hence returned’. Sending notice to the respondent to the address available is sufficient in terms of Section 27 of the General Clause Act 1897. These is no representation on behalf of the respondent in C.R.P.No.3564 of 2012.

4. The present batch of Civil Revision Petitions arises out of separate but similar orders passed by the Executing Courts in second execution petitions filed on the basis of a common arbitral award dated 10-07-2000. Though the execution petitions and impugned orders are different, the parties, factual background, arbitral proceedings, nature of claims, objections and the legal issues involved are substantially common. Hence, these revisions are being considered and disposed of by a common order.

5. The petitioners in all the Civil Revision Petitions are the Department of Telecommunications / Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). The respondents are suppliers of Multi Access Rural Radio (MARR) systems, namely: (i) M/s. Sinclaire Electronics Industries Ltd., later known as M/s. Sinclaire Infratech Ltd. (CRP No. 2864 of 2007); (ii) M/s. MIC Electronics Ltd. (CRP No. 3563 of 2012); (iii) M/s. ARM Ltd., later known as M/s. ICOMM Tele Ltd. (CRP No. 3564 of 2012); and (iv) M/s. Phoenix Telecommunications Ltd., later amalgamated with M/s. MIC Electronics Ltd. (CRP No. 3669 of

2012).

6. Table below will clarify particulars regarding all the CRPs:-

7. In 1995, the petitioners floated tenders for supply of 2/15 and

4/36 Multi Access Rural Radio (MARR) systems in the UHF range. Advance Purchase Orders dated 24-11-1995 and detailed Purchase Orders dated 28-12-1995 were issued in favour of the respective respondents at the then agreed contract rates, governed by the General Conditions of Contract under DGS&D-68. At the request of the respondents, delivery schedules were extended from time to time subject to levy of liquidated damages.

8. While the contracts were under execution, a fresh tender opened on 17-03-1997 disclosed substantially lower market rates. Invoking Clause 6 of the DGS&D-68, the petitioners revised the prices payable for supplies effected after 17-03-1997 based on the rates discovered in the subsequent tender and communicated the revised rates to the respondents. The respondents accepted the revised prices, continued supplies, supplied a small number of systems prior to 17-03-1997 at original rates and the remaining supplies thereafter at revised rates, and received payments accordingly.

9. After completion of supplies and receipt of payments, the respondents challenged the downward price revision by filing writ petitions before this Court, seeking payment at the o