Dismissed

Mohd. Yunus Abdul Rashid Shaikkh v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jul 2013WP/1220/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking injunction to restrain termination of an awarded tender and directing execution of agreement and payment of money. The Court found no case under Article 226 for the claimed reliefs as the petition had become infructuous due to termination of tender. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; injunction not granted; other remedies open to petitioner.

Mohd. Yunus Abdul Rashid Shaikkh Vs Union of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1/4

¶2

(WP1220.13)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1220 OF 2013

¶5

Mohd. Yunus Abdul Rashid Shaikh ….. Petitioner.

¶6

V/s

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors

¶8

…... Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Virendra Mishra i/b M/s V. Mishra & Co. for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. V.G. Indrale for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM: V. M. KANADE &

¶12

K. R. SHRIRAM, JJ.

¶13

DATE: 18^th July, 2013

¶14

P.C.:- (Per V.M. Kanade, J.)

¶15

By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:-

¶16

“a) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondent No.2 from terminating the permission for management of parking of cars

¶17

2/4

¶18

(WP1220.13)

¶19

and vehicles allotted to the petitioner without due process of law; and

¶20

b) The Hon'ble Court be pleased direct the Respondent No.2 to execute the agreement ; and

¶21

c) The Hon'ble Court be pleased direct the Respondent No.2 to pay Rs 90,000/- to the petitioner and further pay monthly payment to the petitioner;

¶22

d) ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer (a), (b), (c) ;

¶23

e) for cost ;

¶24

f) for such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.”

¶25

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 has raised a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and he submitted that this Petition raises disputed questions of facts and, therefore, the only remedy which the Petitioner has is to file a suit.

¶26

Brief facts are that Respondent No.2 - Vashi Railway Station Commercial Complex (VRSCCL) invited tenders for management of car parking space for one year. It is the case of Petitioner that Respondent No.2 accepted bid of the

¶27

3/4

¶28

(WP1220.13)

¶29

Petitioner by its letter dated 8/12/2012 pursuant to which Petitioner has spent huge amount of money by appointing six employees and also paid advance charges to Respondent No.2 from time to time. However, on 1/2/2013, when the Petitioner went to deposit monthly charges of Rs 1,55,786/with Respondent No.2, the said amount was not accepted and he was informed that the Management had terminated the agreement. It is further submitted that, though, by letter dated 8/12/2012, Respondent No.2 had agreed to execute the agreement of contract, the same was not executed. It is further submitted that Respondent No.2 had given threats on 1/2/2013 to dispossess the Petitioner from the parking premises.

¶30

On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 submitted that CIDCO had informed the Railway Authorities that they could not give permission for car parking in respect of the area which was in possession of CIDCO. He further submitted that the cheques which were given by the Petitioner were dishonoured.

¶31

After having heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 at length, we are of the view that no case is made out by the Petitioner for granting relief as claimed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶32

4/4

¶33

(WP1220.13)

¶34

India. Respondent No.2 has terminated the tender which was initially awarded in favour of the Petitioner. Petitioner, on the other hand, is seeking an order of injunction restraining Respondent No.2 from terminating the contract. Petition has, therefore, become infructuous. Keeping other remedies which are available to the Petitioner open, Petition is dismissed.

¶35

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

¶36

B.D. Pandit PS

Mohd. Yunus Abdul Rashid Shaikkh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Yunus Abdul Rashid Shaikkh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakhubai Anna Mali and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Ansari Naeem Nawaz and Ors. Vs Bhiwandi Nizampura City Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Surendra Balashankar Dubey Vs Chairman/ Secretary - Rashtriya Hindi Prachar Mandal and Ors.

Shri. Madhukar Manik Chaudhari and Ors. Vs the Nashik District Girana Sahakari Bank Limited and Ors.

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.(Hsbc) Vs Ms. Archana Ganjanan Chavan and Anr.

Rna Corp Private Limited Vs State of Maharashtra, Urban Development Dept and Ors.