Partly allowed

M/S. Muscovite Agro Trading Co., through Prop. Mrs. Mittal H. Madiyar v. Union of India, through Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2013WP/4455/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a clause in a tender notice barring the petitioner from bidding for specific goods previously offered. The Court held the embargo was limited to that specific cargo due to non-payment, not a blanket ban, and allowed participation in other tenders.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed but with direction that petitioner be permitted to participate in future tenders for goods other than the subject matter of the disputed tender.

M/S. Muscovite Agro Trading Co., through Prop. Mrs… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2013)

wp4455.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4455 OF 2013

¶7

M/s.Muscovite Agro Trading Co. ) through Proprietor Mrs.Mittal H.Madiyar )....Petitioner

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Union of India through its Secretary & Ors.

¶10

)....Respondents

¶11

Mr.Satyajeet Anil Rajeshirke for the petitioner. Mr.C.J.Joy with G.Hariharan for respondent no.1. Mr.R.V.Govilkar i/by Nelson Rajan for respondent no.2.

¶12

CORAM : V.M.KANADE & K.R.SHRIRAM,JJ

¶13

P.C ( Per : K.R.Shriram,J) :-

¶14

1 The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the 2^nd respondent published a defamatory statement in tender notice dated 11.2.2013 (hereinafter referred to as said tender) inviting bids for sale of 775 MT approximately of imported Toor lemon lying at Navi Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the said goods) and further barring the petitioner from participation in the said tender process. The said goods is of the year 2010 and had been imported from Myanmar more than 2 years ago.

¶15

wp4455.13

¶16

¶17

2 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.2 invited bids for the said goods earlier vide tender dated 12^th October 2012, (hereinafter referred to as the tender) Clause-8 of the 1^st tender required earnest money deposit of 15% of bid value. However, the petitioner deposited only 5% of the bid amount as earnest money. Since the petitioner did not deposit the balance amount of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) or make any further payment and also did not take delivery of the goods, the respondent no.2 gave a final notice dated 31^st December 2012 asking the petitioner to make entire payment along with interest and other charges and to lift the entire quantity. The petitioner did not deposit the balance amount and also did not take delivery of the goods. In fact, in the E-mail of 23^rd November 2012 at Exhibit- F to the petition, the petitioner had written to the respondent no.2 that if the EMD amount is less than what was required under the tender, the respondent no.2 could reject their offer and refund the EMD amount.

¶18

3 In view of the fact that the said goods were not removed or paid for by the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent came out with fresh tender dated 11.2.2013, i.e. the said Tender for the said goods in which at 15(a), it is stated as under :-

¶19

wp4455.13

¶20

¶21

“Clause-15(a) The goods offered for sale under this tender were earlier offered to M/s.Musovite Agro Trading Co. who have failed to honour contract terms, as such the goods are offered for sale to all interested parties except M/s.Muscovite Agro trading Co. and its sister concerns.”

¶22

4 It is the case of the petitioner that by inserting the above clause, the respondent no.2 has defamed the petitioner and the petitioner prays that a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the respondent no.2 to withdraw the said tender or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued to quash and set aside the statement made in clause-15(a) of the said tender or for a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the tender process.

¶23

5 We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents. It is quite clear from the tender documents and as submitted by the Counsel for the respondent no.2 that the embargo on the petitioner or its sister concerns mentioned in the said tender relates to the same cargo to

¶24

4 wp4455.13

¶25

which the petitioner had bid earlier and did not pay the balance earnest money and did not take delivery. Due to his failure to pay the balance EMD or make further payment and take delivery, the petitioner has been barred from bidding for the said goods and this embargo does not relate to any other cargo. In the circumstances, as the embargo provided in clause-15(a) of the said tender is not a blanket ban on the petitioner, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. On the contrary we are inclined to dispose the petition at this admission stage itself, with the following directions :-

¶26

(a) The petitioner should be permitted by the respondents to participate in any tender invited by the respondents for any product or goods other than the said goods that is the subject matter of the tender dated 11.2.2013 (Exh.H to the petition);

¶27

(b) The petitioner's name be not published in any of the tender like it has been done in the tender dated 11.2.2013 (Exh.H to the petition) under clause-15(a).

¶28

6 With this, the petition stands disposed with no order as to

¶29

costs.

¶30

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

¶31

5 wp4455.13

M/S. Muscovite Agro Trading Co., through Prop. Mrs. Mittal H. Madiyar v. Union of India, through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Muscovite Agro Trading Co., through Prop. Mrs. Mittal H. Madiyar v. Union of India, through Secretary 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

Ichalkaranji Municipal Council, through Chief Officer Vs Raoso Narsagonda Patil and Ors.

Mr. Gajanan Kashinath Mhatre (Bhivandikar) Vs Mira-Bhayander, Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri. Shantaram Rangnath Katake and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Election Commissioner and Ors.

Jay Bajrang Pratisthan, through Managing Trustee, Rahul R. Khokale Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Dept of School Education and Literacy and Ors.

Shri. Hiraman Parvat Mondhe Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Pandurang Mahadev Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.