Dismissed

M/s. Golden Hair Company v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC6 Jul 2012WP/4602/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (TTD) for refusing to deliver additional quantities of human hair and conducting a fresh auction. The Court held that the TTD was within its rights to refuse delivery since the petitioners failed to pay the balance amount within the 30-day period mandated by the confirmation order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions are dismissed; no order as to costs.

M/s. Golden Hair Company Vs The State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos. 3268, 4524 & 4602 of 2012

¶3

DATE: 06.07.2012

¶4

W.P.No.4524 of 2012

¶5

Between : Gayathri Enterprises & another. ...Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Principal Secretary, Endowments Department & others.

¶6

...Respondents.

¶7

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 3268, 4524 & 4602 of 2012 COMMON ORDER :

¶8

As much as common questions of law arise for consideration on similar set of facts, all these writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal, I refer to the facts as arise in W.P.No.4524 of 2012.

¶9

2. In the writ petition, the petitioners seek directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not issuing the additional quantities of hair allotted as per the confirmation order dated 07.04.2011, issued in Roc.No.03/EE(HH)/MRKT/TTD/TPT/ 2011, and in returning the demand drafts vide proceedings in Roc.No.A1/03/EE(HH)/MRKT/2011, dated 25.01.2012, and the further action of respondents in conducting fresh auction for sale of human hair on 23.02.2012 pursuant to auction notice issued in Proceedings No.MSTC/VZG/Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams/3/ Tirupati/11-12/9924, as illegal and arbitrary and in violation of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

3. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (TTD), Tirupathi, has issued short tender notice-cum-auction for disposal of

¶11

six varieties of human hair. The offers in sealed covers were to be submitted before 1 p.m. on 31.03.2011. The petitioners have participated in the aforesaid tender process. The tender committee, after conducting negotiations and after approval of the TTD Board, has issued the proceedings dated 07.04.2011, issued in Roc.No.03/EE(HH)/MRKT/TTD/TPT/2011, confirming the sale in favour of petitioners for the tender quantities and also for additional quantities. So far as 1^st petitioner is concerned, sale was confirmed for a quantum of 200 kgs of 1^st variety of hair for an amount of Rs.24,20,000/- and 200 kgs of 2^nd variety for an amount of Rs.21,84,000/-. In the confirmation proceedings, further additional quantities of 800 kgs of 1^st variety for an amount of Rs.96,80,000/and 19800 kgs of 2^nd variety for an amount of Rs.21,62,16,000/-, were also allotted to the 1^st petitioner. By deducting the deposited amounts, the 1^st petitioner was requested to pay balance amount of Rs.22,07,87,000/- towards the balance cost for additional quantities allotted, by way of demand draft in favour of the Executive Engineer, TTD, payable at Tirupati, within 30 days from the date of issuance of confirmation order or at the time of taking delivery of tender quantity, whichever is earlier. There is also a condition for forfeiture of 2.5% of the amount paid by the 1^st petitioner towards deposit, failing to pay the total amount within the time referred

¶12

above. Similarly, the 2^nd petitioner was confirmed with the sale of tender quantity of 300 kgs of 1^st variety for an amount of Rs.36,30,000/- and 2200 kgs of 2^nd variety for an amount of Rs.2,44,20,000/-. He was also allotted the additional quantity of 1000 kgs of 1^st variety for an amount of Rs.1,21,00,000/-. For issuance of additional quantity allotted, by deducting the deposit amount of Rs.3,00,600/-

¶13

, the 2^nd petitioner was requested to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,17,99,400/- within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of confirmation order or at the time of taking delivery of above said quantity, whichever is earlier. There is also a condition for forfeiture of 2.5% of the amount which is deposited for allotment of additional quantity.

¶14

4. In view of the confirmation order issued in favour of petitioners on 07.04.2011, the petitioners are already delivered the tender quantities notified on payment of the bid amount offered by them. In these writ petitions, the dispute is with regard to the additional quantities of hair allotted vide proceedings dated 07.04.2011 issued by the respondents.

¶15

5. After confirmation orders were issued for sale of additional quantities of hair allotted to the petitioners, some third parties approached this Court by filing a batch of writ petitions, questioning the allotment of tender

¶16

quantities as well as the additional quantities of hair to the petitioners, in W.P.No.9838 of 2011 and batch. The said batch of writ petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 05.11.2011. As against the same, petitioners in W.P.Nos.10198 of 2011 and 9860 of 2011 have carried the matters by way of writ appeals in W.A.Nos.988 of 2011 and 1073 of 2011. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeals by order dated 15^th December 2011 and confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. While disposing of the writ appeals, the Division Bench has issued the following directions, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions;

¶17

“In the light of this final order and as the TTD has already confirmed the allotment of stipulated additional quantities of hair to the successful tenderers under its letters dated 07.04.2011, it shall release the named additional quantities to those tenderers who remitted the amounts due for such quantities within time. As regards any remaining tender quantities of hair, it would be for the TTD to exercise its discretion under Condition No.11 of the tender conditions and decide whether it should allot such quantities to the bidders and if so, at what prices or opt for a fresh tender process.”

¶18

As against the judgment of Division Bench in W.A.Nos.988 and 1073 of 2011, the appellant in W.A.No.1073 of 2011 has filed a Special Leave Petition

¶19

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.35739 of 2011 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 23^rd January 2012.

¶20

6. Subsequently, the 1^st petitioner herein has also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.31335 of 2011, seeking directions by way of Mandamus to the respondents herein for release of the additional quantities of hair pursuant to the proceedings issued in Roc.No.03/ EE(HH)/MRKT/TTD/TPT/2011, dated 07.04.2011. The said writ petition is disposed of in view of the directions issued by the Division Bench in the common order dated 15^th December 2011, passed in W.A.Nos.988 of 2011 and 1073 of 2011. Further, the 1^st petitioner has also filed a contempt case in C.C.No.82 of 2012 and the same was withdrawn on 31^st January 2012.

¶21

7. When the petitioners had not lifted the additional quantities of hair within the period of 30 days as per the confirmation proceedings dated 7^th April 2011 even after dismissal of the batch of writ petitions, the Executive Officer of TTD has issued the individual impugned intimations that stocks cannot be delivered as the petitioners have not lifted the quantities within the time stipulated, and when further auctions were notified, these writ petitions are filed questioning such intimations and the

¶22

consequential action to auction the human hair.

¶23

8. In these writ petitions, it is the case of petitioners that though they were ready to take delivery of the additional quantities of hair as confirmed in the confirmation proceedings dated 07.04.2011 issued in Roc.No.03/EE(HH)/MRKT/TTD/TPT/2011 by purchasing the demand drafts, respondents have not delivered such additional quantities. It is the allegation of petitioners that the 7^th respondent, who is the Managing Director of Gupta Enterprises, who lost the litigation upto the Supreme Court, has developed grudge against the petitioners, and at his instance, the additional quantities had not been released to them. It is alleged that the 6^th respondent, who is the Executive Officer of TTD and who has enmity with the petitioners, is also helping the 7^th respondent to see that the additional quantities of hair are not delivered to the petitioners and the 6^th respondent, in gross abuse of his powers, has passed the impugned order instead of delivering such additional quantities of hair to the petitioners as per the confirmation order dated 07.04.2011. In the affidavit, it is stated that inspite of several representations, the 2^nd respondent refused to take the demand drafts on the ground that litigation is pending, and even after dismissal of the writ petitions filed by third parties, respondents are not delivering the same

¶24

under the influence of respondent No.7. It is further stated that as the petitioners had submitted the demand drafts to the 2^nd respondent immediately after disposal of the writ petitions, it is not open for the respondents to say that the petitioners have not paid the amount within the period of 30 days from the date of confirmation order to take delivery of the additional quantities of hair allotted to them.

¶25

9. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 6 along with the supporting material papers. In the counter affidavit, while denying the several allegations made by the petitioners, it is averred that the petitioners have intentionally made baseless and irrelevant allegations only for the purpose of seeking relief as prayed in the writ petitions. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioners have participated in the tender process and in the e-auction held on 23^rd of February 2012 and their bids were accepted for allotment of human hair of different varieties. It is averred in the counter that the petitioners have failed to perform their obligations as per the confirmation proceedings dated 07.04.2011 but filed the present writ petitions by making false and incorrect allegations. In the counter, it is stated that the 1^st petitioner herein has specifically admitted in his letter dated 28^th January 2012 addressed to the 2^nd respondent that they have submitted demand drafts only along with their representations dated 22^nd December

¶26

2011 and 24^th December 2011 respectively, but such statement was not made in the contempt case, which was filed earlier before this Court in C.C.No.82 of 2012. In the counter, it is categorically stated that the demand drafts which are referred to, were not obtained for the purpose of making payment for release of additional quantities of human hair allotted under the confirmation order dated 07.04.2011. It is stated that out of the demand drafts, particulars of which are mentioned in the material papers, the demand draft bearing No.485353, dated 05.11.2011 for Rs.5,03,53,000/-, which was drawn on State Bank of India, Tanuku, was cancelled on 15.11.2011 itself without submitting it to TTD for the reasons best known to the petitioners. It is further stated that the other demand drafts were submitted to TTD for release of stocks allotted to the petitioners in the e-auction held on 22.09.2011 and the demand drafts mentioned by the petitioners herein were never presented for the purpose of release of additional stocks of hair as per the confirmation proceedings dated 07.04.2011. It is further stated that some of the demand drafts which were enclosed with the representation of the petitioners dated 22^nd December 2011, were returned as they were submitted after expiry of the time granted in the confirmation proceedings dated 07.04.2011. While referring to the directions issued by the Division Bench while disposing of W.A.Nos.988 of 2011 and 1073 of

¶27

2011, counter further states that the confirmation orders were issued on 07.04.2011 and this Court by order dated 29^th April 2011, directed the respondents not to compel the successful bidders for payment of money within the stipulated time mentioned in the confirmation orders, till the writ petitions are disposed of. It is stated that the writ petitions were finally dismissed on 05.11.2011. Even therearfter, the petitioners have not deposited the cost of additional quantities within 30 days i.e. by 04.12.2011, as such, they are not entitled for the additional quantities as claimed by them. While referring to resolution No.454, dated 11.12.2011, it is stated in the counter that in view of the directions issued by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.988 and 1073 of 2011, it is obligatory on their part to comply with the directions issued in the said writ appeals. While referring to the powers of the Executive Officer, it is stated that he is competent authority for fixing the time, and having failed to remit the amount within the time as per the confirmation orders, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in these writ petitions.

¶28

10. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri S.Ramachandra Rao, appearing on behalf of Sri K.R.Prabhakar for petitioners in W.P.No.4524 of 2012, learned counsel Sri Rajagopal Rao, appearing on behalf of Sri A.V.Sesha Sai for petitioner in W.P.No.4602 of 2012 and Sri Hari Sreedhar, appearing for petitioner in W.P.No.3268 of

¶29

2012, and Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, Special Standing Counsel, appearing for TTD.

¶30

11. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel Sri S.Ramachandra Rao as well as the other counsel appearing for petitioners that though the petitioners were ready to perform their obligation by paying the necessary amounts as per the confirmation proceedings dated 07.04.2011 issued in proceedings No. Roc.No.03/ EE(HH)/MRKT/TTD/TPT/2011, the respondents have failed to deliver the additional quantities of hair as per the confirmation proceedings. It is submitted that there is no power conferred on the respondents to demand payment within 30 days from the date of dismissal of the batch of writ petitions. It is submitted that as much as there were directions issued by this Court not to compel them for payment of amounts for purchase of additional quantities of hair during the pendency of writ petitions in W.P.No.9838 of 2011 and batch, it is not open for the respondents to deprive the delivery of additional quantities of hair to the petitioners on the ground that they have not deposited the amount within the period of 30 days from the date of judgment in the said batch of writ petitions. It is submitted that in view of dismissal of the writ petitions, respondents should have intimated by fixing a date for deposit of amounts for delivery of additional quantities of hair, in the absence of which, it is not open for the respondents to refuse delivery of additional quantities of

¶31

hair on the ground that the petitioners have not deposited the amount within the period of 30 days from the date of dismissal of the batch of writ petitions. While referring to Rule 118-A of the TTD Board Rules, 1990, it is submitted that as the value of the quantity of hair is more than Rs.1,00,000/-, the Board of Trustees should have taken decision under the said Rule. In the absence of any decision by the Board of Trustees, it is not open to the Executive Officer to refuse delivery of additional quantities of hair on the ground that the petitioners have failed to comply with the obligation of making payment within the period of 30 days. It is further submitted that in any event, having regard to the representations made by the petitioners and the demand drafts purchased by them, it is not open to the respondents to plead that they were not ready to perform their part of contract.

¶32

12. Sri Rajagopal Rao, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.4602 of 2012, submitted that in view of the resolution of the Board, dated 11.12.2011, respondents should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to negotiate the price to match the highest rates fetched in the e-auction held on 22.09.2011, but inspite of such a resolution, no opportunity was given to them.

¶33

13. Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.3268 of 2012 further submitted that his client purchased the demand drafts well within 30 days, inspite

¶34

of the same, without any valid reason, he was not given delivery of additional quantities of hair by accepting the said demand drafts. The learned counsel has relied on the provisions under Sections 37 and 38 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 in support of his argument.

¶35

14. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for TTD that in the confirmation order dated 07.04.2011, there is specific condition requesting the petitioners to pay the balance value of the cost of additional quantities of hair within a period of 30 days from the date of said confirmation order or at the time of taking delivery of tender quantities, whichever is earlier, inspite of the same, petitioners have not made any attempt to pay the balance amount. It is submitted that the petitioners have merely filed representations indicating their readiness to pay such amounts, but the petitioners, at no point of time, made any attempt to deposit the demand drafts for taking delivery of additional quantities of hair within the period of 30 days. It is submitted that in the subsequent auction held on 22.09.2011, as higher rates were fetched than the auctions in which the petitioners had participated, by making false allegations, petitioners have come up with these writ petitions demanding for delivery of additional quantities of hair. It is submitted that though there was a resolution of the Board on 11.12.2011 in resolution

¶36

No.454, in view of the Division Bench judgment, there was no other option left to the TTD except to issue the impugned intimations as the petitioners have not deposited the amount within the time as per the confirmation order. It is submitted that without payment of amounts within the time frame as directed by this Court in the order of the Division Bench, it is not open for petitioners to seek any directions for delivery of additional quantities of hair after expiry of the time limit. It is contended by the learned counsel that all the demand drafts, which are sought to be projected by the petitioners, were either not submitted to the respondents or such demand drafts were used by the petitioners for purchase of hair in the auctions held subsequently. It is also contended that as per the Rules framed, the executive authority is competent to fix time frame for deposit of auction amount, and hence, there is no illegality or any irregularity in issuing the impugned intimations. In any event, it is submitted that having participated in the subsequent auctions, it is not open for the petitioners to seek the reliefs as claimed in these writ petitions.

¶37

15. In these writ petitions, it is to be noticed that in the confirmation order dated 07.04.2011, respondents have confirmed the sale with regard to the tender quantities as well as the additional quantities allotted to each of the petitioners. So far as tender quantities are concerned, it is

¶38

not in dispute that such quantities are already delivered to the petitioners. As far as the additional quantities of human hair is concerned, there is a time stipulation for payment of balance amount within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of confirmation orders or at the time of taking delivery of the additional quantities, whichever is earlier. For claiming the additional quantities of hair, the 1^st petitioner was to deposit an amount of Rs.22,07,87,000/- within a period of 30 days from 07.04.2011. Similarly, the 2^nd petitioner was to deposit an amount of Rs.1,17,99,400/-. It is true that before expiry of 30 days period, some third parties have approached this Court by filing writ petitions questioning the sale of additional quantities of hair allotted to the petitioners. In those writ petitions, there was an interim order passed at the instance of petitioners on 29^th April 2011, not to compel the successful bidders for performing their obligation i.e. payment of money on or before 06.05.2011 as per the confirmation order dated 07.04.2011. Further interim orders were passed on 29.07.2011 to go for tenders for sale of human hair, duly keeping aside 50 tonns of human hair. Subsequently, further e-auction was conducted on 22.09.2011. It is pertinent to mention that whereas in the auction held on 31.03.2011, the rate fetched for 1^st variety of hair was Rs.12,100/- per kg and Rs.10,920 to 11,100/- to the 2^nd variety. But in the

¶39

e-auction held on 22.09.2011, Rs.20,000/- to 20,161/- per kg was fetched for 1^st variety and Rs.18,500/to 18,650/- for the 2^nd variety. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were aware of the dismissal of writ petitions filed by the third parties on 05.11.2011, which judgment was confirmed by a Division Bench and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court in view of withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition. Inspite of the specific condition to pay the consideration for delivery of additional quantities of hair within a period of 30 days from the date of confirmation, the petitioners have not deposited the amount as per the said condition imposed in the confirmation order dated 07.04.2011. In view of the time frame fixed in the confirmation order, it is not necessary on the part of respondents either to issue any notice for payment of money or to fix any further date for such payment. As 30 days period was fixed for payment, only such period during which the interim orders passed by this Court were in force, gets extended in favour of petitioners for deposit of amounts. Inspite of dismissal of writ petitions on 05.11.2011, the petitioners have not paid the amounts even within a period of 30 days from the said date of dismissal. There is no material to show either the petitioners have paid such amounts within the time or purchased any demand drafts and submitted to the respondents for purchase of the additional quantities of hair allotted to them.

¶40

16. It is true that when there were representations from the respondents, the TTD Board has passed a resolution to request the successful bidders in the auction held on 31.03.2011 to match with the rates fetched in the e- auction held on 22.09.2011 and to authorize the Executive Officer to recall the confirmation orders issued on 07.04.2011, but it is to be noticed that a Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing the batch of writ appeals, has categorically observed that the additional quantities of hair shall be released to the bidders subject to remitting the amounts due for such quantities within the time. The word “within the time” as used in the order of the Division Bench is to be construed as the time as fixed in the confirmation orders, excluding the period for which the interim order passed by this Court not to compel the successful bidders to perform their obligation, was in force. The time of 30 days for deposit of money for drawing the additional quantities of hair was commenced from the date of confirmation order itself, and further, having failed to remit any amount within the period of 30 days even after dismissal of the writ petitions, it is not open for petitioners to seek for any directions for delivery of additional quantities of hair as per the confirmation order. The petitioners plead for supply of additional quantities of hair as per the confirmation order, but they themselves have failed to comply with the condition which

¶41

is part and parcel of the confirmation order itself. Though the learned counsel for petitioners have placed reliance on Rule 118-A of the TTD Board Rules, 1990, framed under the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, it is not helpful to the petitioners in any way. Rule 118-A(1) reads as under:

¶42

“118-A. (1) Every sale of movable property shall be confirmed by the Executive Officer, if, however the amount involved is more than Rs.One lakh per lot such sale shall be confirmed by the Board of Trustees”.

¶43

A perusal of the aforesaid rule shows the power conferred on the Board of Trustees with regard to confirmation of sale of movable properties when the value is more than Rs.1,00,000/-. As the sale pursuant to the auction held on 31.03.2011 is already confirmed in favour of petitioners, the said rule has no further application to the case of petitioners.

¶44

17. On the other hand, Rules 116 and 117 of the aforesaid Rules read as under:

¶45

“116: All sales of movable properties other than perishables belonging to the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams shall be made by public auction held either at Tirupathi or Titumala or at the placle of the temple or institution of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams or at the place where the properties are situated.

¶46

117: The Executive Officer or any other officer

¶47

authorized by him shall decide the terms and conditions of the sale such as the division of the properties into lots, the amount of initial deposits to be made by the bidders, the place, date and hour of sale, the security to be furnished by the highest bidder and the period within which the sale price is to be paid.”

¶48

A perusal of Rules 116 and 117 makes it amply clear that the Executive Officer is the competent authority for fixing the time limit for the period within which the sale price is to be paid. In view of fixing of 30 days period by the Executive Officer, which is confirmed by the Tender Committee and ratified by the specified authority, the refusal to deliver the additional quantities of hair as the petitioners have failed to deposit the sale price within the time, is well within the powers of the Executive Officer. I have also perused the several representations relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners. None of the said representations were filed by the petitioners within the period of 30 days, and no demand drafts were enclosed to such representations for supply of additional quantities of hair. The demand drafts which are mentioned by the petitioners are never offered for supply of additional quantities of hair, and as evident from the counter affidavit, the petitioners, who obtained the demand drafts for purchase of hair in the subsequent auctions, are trying to use the same in support of their claim for release of additional quantities of hair as confirmed in the

¶49

proceedings dated 07.04.2011. Although it is categorically pleaded that the respondents should have given an opportunity to the petitioners as per the Board resolution dated 11.12.2011, but having failed to participate in the auction held on 22.09.2011, they have no right to seek for allotment of additional quantities of hair by offering rates to match the highest price fetched in the auction held on 22.09.2011. In any event, having regard to the observations made by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 15^th December 2011 while disposing of Writ Appeal Nos.988 of 2011 and 1073 of 2011, there was no other option but to reject the claim of petitioners, as they have not deposited the sale price within the time frame as per the confirmation proceedings dated 07.04.2011.

¶50

18. Though it is pleaded by the petitioners in these writ petitions that they were ready to pay the amount, the representations which were stated to have been filed within a period of 30 days from the date of dismissal of the writ petitions, were not enclosed with any demand drafts and no material is placed before this Court to show that they have paid the money to take delivery of additional quantities of hair as per the confirmation proceedings dated 07.04.2011. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any acceptable material to show that the petitioners had made payments within the time stipulated,

¶51

they are not entitled to any directions for supply of additional quantities of hair as per the confirmation proceedings. It appears, in view of the huge difference in rates fetched for 1^st and 2^nd categories in the subsequent auctions, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions to take benefit of additional quantities of hair at the old rates offered by them in the auction held on 31.03.2011.

¶52

19. Though it is argued by Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in W.P.No.3268 of 2012 that the petitioner has purchased demand drafts to take delivery of additional quantities of hair pursuant to the confirmation order, there is no proof of submitting such demand drafts before the respondents, and in the 1^st representation filed by the petitioner, there is no reference to such demand drafts at all. It is also argued by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for TTD that such demand drafts purchased by the petitioners were subsequently got cancelled by the petitioners themselves. In that view of the matter, there is no acceptable material to accept even the plea of petitioner in W.P.No.3268 of 2012 that they have complied with the contractual obligations by offering the sale price within the stipulated period of 30 days.

¶53

20. The learned Senior Counsel Sri S.Ramachandra Rao, appearing for petitioners in W.P.No.4524 of 2012, in

¶54

support of his case, has placed reliance in the case of Delhi Development Authority & another V. Joint Action

¶55

Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats & Others^[1] , wherein, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a party to the contract cannot, at a later stage, while the contract was being performed, impose terms and conditions which were not part of the offer and which were based upon unilateral issuance of office orders, but not communicated to the other party to the contract. The learned counsel has also relied on the judgment in the case of Coromandel Indag Products Pvt. Ltd. V. Garuda Chit

¶56

and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. & anothe r^[2] , wherein, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the essence of contract is to be determined from intention and conduct of parties gathered from terms of agreement. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Mehta V. Custodian

¶57

Appointed Under the Special Court & Others^[3] , wherein, in the facts and circumstances of the said case, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that time was not of the essence and, therefore, Section 55 of the Contract Act was not attracted in the said case. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied on another judgment of Supreme Court in the case of R.K.Saxena V.

¶58

Delhi Development Authority^[4] , wherein, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the respondent authority

¶59

was not justified in cancelling the allotment in favour of appellant therein, after receiving the balance amount even after the expiry of extended time.

¶60

21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the above said judgments relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners would not render any assistance in support of their case. In the present case, though there was a specific condition with regard to the time frame for payment of money for lifting the additional quantities of hair, petitioners have failed to fulfill such obligation by not remitting the cost of additional quantities of hair within such time frame. In that view of the matter, the ratio laid down in the judgments referred above will not render any help to the petitioners.

¶61

22. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶62

______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶63

6^th July 2012

¶64

ajr

¶65