Allowed

Currymia Foods Ltd. v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Defence & Ors.

Delhi HC23 Feb 2024LPA/153/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the appeal against a single judge order refusing tender participation. It directed respondents to postpone tender technical evaluation by ten days to decide a pending appeal within a week, granting liberty to bid if that appeal succeeds, reserving merit issues.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to postpone tender technical evaluation by ten days and decide pending appeal within a week; liberty granted to file bid if appeal allowed.

Currymia Foods Ltd. Vs Union of India through the… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LPA 153/2024 and CM APPL. 11233-34/2024 CURRYMIA FOODS LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ravikesh K. Sinha, Advocate

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Kaushal Jeet Kait, GP and Mr. Jatin Yadav, Advocate with Col. A. K.Chhawry, Ministry of Defence for R-1 to 3

¶6

% Date of Decision: 23^rd February, 2024 CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶8

J U D G M E N T

¶9

MANMOHAN, ACJ: (ORAL)

¶10

CM APPL. 11235/2024 (for exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

¶13

LPA 153/2024 and CM APPL. 11233-34/2024

¶14

Present appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 19^th February, 2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 2359/2024 (‘impugned order’) and to further direct the Respondents to permit the Appellant to participate in the tender process issued by Respondent No. 3 on 24^th January, 2024 (‘impugned tender’).

¶15

Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Learned Single Judge vide the impugned order has directed the Respondent no. 2 to consider the appeal of the Appellant, but has refused to permit the appellant to

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed By:TAVNEET SINGH Signing Da te:2 4.02.2024 20:55:01

¶18

LPA 153/2024 Page 1 of 3

¶19

participate in the tender process.

¶20

He states that the Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the whole purpose of filing the writ petition was to enable the Appellant to participate in the tender. He states that the Learned Single Judge held that the Appellant is entitled to file an appeal against the order dated 7^th November, 2023 and to satisfy the Appellate Authority regarding merger/amalgamation. He states that the appeal stands filed.

¶21

He submits that it is a settled law that after merger, the transferor entity (in the present case the Federation) loses its identity and the transferee entity (the Appellant herein) steps into the shoe of the transferor entity. He further states that the Respondent No. 3 had permitted the Appellant to continue to supply the product in question on the strength of an affidavit, which was filed by the Appellant on 17^th January, 2024 showing that the abattoir and the management of the merged entity are the same, and thus other than a technical issue, it is not understood as to why the Appellant could not participate in the existing tender of the Respondent No. 3.

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel for Respondents, who appears on advance notice, states that though the amalgamation had taken place on 4^th October, 2022, yet the Respondent was informed of the said amalgamation for the first time on 19^th September, 2023. He points out that on 7^th November, 2023, the predecessor entity of the Appellant herein was removed from the approved list of ASC Contractors. He emphasises that the appeal against the said removal has been filed by the Appellant yesterday i.e., 22^nd February, 2024.

¶23

Consequently, according to him, the Appellant is not entitled to any relief from this Court.

¶24

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TAVNEET SINGH Signing Da te:2 4.02.2024 20:55:01

¶25

LPA 153/2024 Page 2 of 3

¶26

In rejoinder, learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Appellant had applied for its registration, in its name, vide letter dated 1^st November, 2023 and technical as well as hygienic inspection has already been done in pursuant thereto. He states that even after the order dated 7^th November, 2023, the Appellant has continued to supply the product in question to the Respondents herein.

¶27

Keeping in view the fact that the Appellant has already filed an appeal and is continuing to supply the product in question to the Respondent, this Court disposes of the present appeal along with pending applications by directing the Respondents to postpone the date of technical evaluation of bids, which is supposed to open tomorrow by ten days. The Respondents are further directed to decide the appellant’s appeal dated 22^nd February, 2024 in accordance with law within a week.

¶28

In the event Appellant’s appeal is allowed, the Appellant shall be given liberty to file its bid under the impugned tender within forty eight hours.

¶29

This Court clarifies that this Court has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

¶30

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶31

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶32

FEBRUARY 23, 2024/ rhc

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed By:TAVNEET SINGH Signing Da te:2 4.02.2024 20:55:01

¶35

LPA 153/2024 Page 3 of 3

Currymia Foods Ltd. v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Defence & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Currymia Foods Ltd. v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Defence & 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

National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour Vs Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Board

Panna Lal and Others Vs Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. & Anr.

Tehran Jonoob Technical and Construction Company Vs Engineers India Limited & Anr.

Confederation of Delhi Industries and Cetp Societies and Ors. Vs the Special Commissioner of Industry Cum Appropriate Authority, Cetp and Ors.

Jayant Singh Raghav Vs the Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

M/S R.K Enterprises Vs Gail Gas Limited