9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure dismissed by the learned single Judge. 2. Allegations of mala fides against the defendants for not opening part II of the tender documents. 3. Claim for damages by the plaintiff due to alleged mala fides. 4. Interpretation of the plaint to determine if it discloses a cause of action. 5. Application of Order 7 rule 11 CPC and principles laid down in relevant case laws. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal arose from the dismissal of the application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC by the learned single Judge based on the contention that the plaint discloses a cause of action. The appellants, a public sector Government Company, invited tenders for handling iron and steel materials, with the first respondent being one of the tenderers. The first respondent alleged that the appellants did not open part II of the tenders to benefit a contractor, M/s. S.K. Sharma, leading to a suit for damages against the appellants. 2. The key issue revolved around the allegations of mala fides against the appellants for not opening part II of the tender documents, which the plaintiff claimed was to benefit a specific contractor. The plaintiff contended that this action caused loss and rendered them ineligible for future work opportunities. The appellants argued that the suit should be dismissed as the plaint lacked material particulars of malice, but Order 6 rule 10 CPC allows for allegations of malice to be stated as facts without detailed circumstances. 3. The plaintiff sought damages based on the alleged mala fides of the appellants, claiming that the failure to open part II of the tenders was intentional to favor a specific contractor. The plaintiff asserted that this action caused financial loss and prevented them from being awarded the handling contract. The appellants defended by stating that they had the right to accept or reject tenders as per the terms of the invitation to tender. 4. The interpretation of the plaint was crucial to determine if it disclosed a cause of action. The court emphasized that the strength or weakness of the plaintiff's case should not be a factor in considering the application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC. The court analyzed the allegations of mala fides and the impact of not opening part II of the tenders on the plaintiff's eligibility for future work opportunities. 5. The court applied the principles laid down in relevant case laws to conclude that a meaningful reading of the plaint disclosed a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff. The court highlighted that the mere allegation of malice without detailed circumstances was sufficient under Order 6 rule 10 CPC. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed as the court found no merit in challenging the learned single Judge's decision to reject the application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC.
|
