Dismissed

M/s.Trigyn Technologies Ltd. v. The Managing Director

Madras HC14 Sept 2023WP/3435/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition filed by a technology company challenging the arbitrary rejection of a bid in a tender process. The prayer was declared infructuous after the petitioner filed a subsequent letter stating it was no longer necessary.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's Earnest Money Deposit was directed to be returned within four weeks.

M/s.Trigyn Technologies Ltd. Vs The Managing… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.3435 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :14.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P No.3435 of 2021

¶7

and

¶8

WMP.Nos.3933 & 3934 of 2021

¶9

M/s.Trigyn Technologies Limited, Represented by its Company Secretary, Mukesh Tank, SDF-I, SEEPZ-SEZ, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 096.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The Managing Director, Tiruppur Smart City Limited, Registered Office: No-1, Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation, Corporation Building, Municipal Office Road, Tiruppur, Coimbatore – 641 604.

¶13

City Engineer, Tiruppur Municipal Corporation, Mangalam Road, Tiruppur – 641 604. ...Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

¶15

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first

¶16

1/4

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.No.3435 of 2021

¶19

respondent relating to the impugned E-Notice dated 04.02.2021 rejecting the petitioner's bid arbitrarily without assigning any reasons; quash the same as

¶20

illegal, incompetent and unconstitutional and further pass an order directing the respondents to restart the tender process.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.Kumarpal Chopra

¶22

For Respondents : Ms.P.Shanthi for R1 & R2

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner circulated a letter dated 04.09.2023 stating that the prayer in the Writ Petition has become infructuous.

¶25

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also

¶26

submitted that the prayer in the Writ Petition has become infructuous. The said statement is recorded.

¶27

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further

¶28

submitted that the first respondent may be directed to return the Earnest

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

2/4

¶31

W.P.No.3435 of 2021

¶32

Money Deposit of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has no objection for the same. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to return the Earnest Money Deposit of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶33

4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶34

14.09.2023

¶35

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No dna

¶36

¶37

The Managing Director, Tiruppur Smart City Limited, Registered Office: No-1, Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation, Corporation Building, Municipal Office Road, Tiruppur, Coimbatore – 641 604.

¶38

The City Engineer, Tiruppur Municipal Corporation, Mangalam Road, Tiruppur – 641 604.

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

3/4

¶41

W.P.No.3435 of 2021

¶42

S.SOUNTHAR, J. dna

¶43

W.P No.3435 of 2021 and WMP.Nos.3933 & 3934 of 2021

¶44

14.09.2023

¶45

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M/s.Trigyn Technologies Ltd. v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Trigyn Technologies Ltd. v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Subramanian Vs The Registrar of Co-operative societies

G.Jaisankar Srinivasan, M.a., B.L, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Palanivel Vs The Joint commissioner

T.Ramalingam Vs The Director of Handloom and

M/s.Trigyn Technologies Ltd., Vs The Managing Director

Pappathi Vs The Registrar of Co-operative societies