Disposed

Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust v. Mundra Port and Special Economic Zone Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jun 2011CAW/1249/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This interim order permitted the applicant to open and scrutinize tenders and allowed petitioners to resubmit bank guarantees. No further action or award of contract was allowed pending the petition's outcome.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to open and scrutinize tenders and to resubmit bank guarantee; no further action or contract award permitted.

Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Vs Mundra Port and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 CA1249-11.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1249 OF 2011 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3514 OF 2011

¶5

Jawaharal Nehru Port Trust

¶6

..Applicant

¶7

¶8

Mundra Port & Special Economic Zone Ltd. and ors. ..Respondents

¶9

Mr.Rajeev Kumar i/b.A.Advani & Co, for applicant (orig. respondent no.3).

¶10

Mr.Vikram Nankani, for respondent no.1 and 2 (orig. petitioners)

¶11

Mr.D.J.Khambatta, Addl. Solicitor General with Mr.S.I.Shah, for respondent nos.3 and 4 (orig. respondent nos.1 and 2).

¶12

Mr.H.W.Kane i/b.Motiwala & Co., for respondent no.5. (orig.respondent no. 4)

¶13

Mr.Gandhar Raikar a/w.K.Sen & Charler Desoza, for respondent no 6 (orig.respondent no.5).

¶14

CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH &

¶15

R.G.KETKAR, JJ.

¶16

DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2011

¶17

2 CA1249-11.odt

¶18

P.C:

¶19

Not on board. Mentioned.

¶20

2] Put up on 4th July, 2011. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant (original respondent no.3) - Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (J.N.P.T.) states that the respondent no.3 be permitted to open the tenders and process them. He states that respondent no.3 – J.N.P.T., however, will not award any contract without obtaining leave of the Court. The statement is accepted.

¶21

3] Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 (original petitioners) submits that the petitioners’ tender has been rejected by respondent no.3 and their bank guarantee has been returned. Therefore, the respondent no.3, if it is considering other tenders, be directed to consider the tender of the petitioners also and the petitioners also be permitted to submit bank guarantee which has been returned to them. Consideration of tenders should be subject to the result of this petition.

¶22

4] So far as the request made on behalf of the petitioners is concerned, it is common ground that the security clearance is necessary for awarding the contract and, therefore, the bid can be considered without there being security clearance. In any case, as per the respondent no.3’s statement, contract is not to be awarded until this Court permits that. Therefore, nobody’s interest is likely to be adversely affected if the tender submitted by the petitioners is considered by the respondent no.3.

¶23

3 CA1249-11.odt

¶24

5] In this view of the matter, by ad-interim order, the respondent no.3 is granted permission to open and scrutinse the tenders, but no further action should be taken. The respondent no.3 is also directed to permit the petitioners to resubmit the bank guarantee which was returned to the petitioners and to open the tender submitted by the petitioners also and consider it along with other tenders. However, result of scrutiny of tenders shall not be declared and the contract shall not be awarded. Opening of the tender of the petitioners shall be subject to the result of the petition.

¶25

[R.G.KETKAR, J.]

¶26

[D.K.DESHMUKH, J.]

Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust v. Mundra Port and Special Economic Zone Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust v. Mundra Port and Special Economic Zone Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Clean City Council Vs Thane Muncipal Corporation and Ors.

Ateeq Ahmed Kamal Ahmed Vs Malegaon Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Madhukar Damodar Sonawane and Ors. Vs Nashik Municipal Coaporation and Ors.

Pulin Co. Operative Hsg. Soc Ltd., and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balasaheb Mahadev Yerande and Anr. Vs the Stae of Maha. and Ors.

Hashmat Ali Riyasat Ali Shaikh Vs 1. Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilition Authority and Others.