9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent's communication was sent to the wrong email address. 2. Whether the petitioner was prejudiced due to the respondent's actions. 3. Whether the petitioner was negligent in checking the provided email addresses. 4. Whether the tender process was conducted fairly and without arbitrariness. 5. Whether the petitioner's delay in approaching the court affects the relief sought. Summary: Issue 1: Wrong Email Address The petitioner argued that the respondent sent the communication dated 21st February 2013 to the wrong email address, causing a delay in their response. The court found that the petitioner had provided multiple email addresses, including [email protected], which received the email but was treated as spam. The court held that the respondent was not at fault for sending the email to one of the provided addresses. Issue 2: Prejudice Due to Respondent's Actions The petitioner claimed prejudice due to the respondent's mistake in sending the email to the wrong address. The court noted that the petitioner did receive the email on 21st February 2013, and the delay in discovering it was due to the petitioner's own negligence. The court found no fault or malice on the part of the respondent. Issue 3: Negligence in Checking Email Addresses The court emphasized that the petitioner was duty-bound to check all provided email addresses regularly, as instructed in the bidding form. The court found it unreasonable for a multinational company to neglect checking emails for 18 days, leading to the delay in responding to the respondent's communication. Issue 4: Fairness of Tender Process The court examined the tender process and found no arbitrariness, malice, or violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner was informed on the given email ID to respond by 1st March 2013, and the delay was due to the petitioner's negligence. The court held that the decision-making process was reasonable and did not suffer from arbitrariness or unreasonableness. Issue 5: Delay in Approaching the Court The court noted that the petitioner filed the writ petition on 6th May 2013, more than a month after the impugned order dated 4th April 2013. The court found that the delay in approaching the court, coupled with the advanced stage of the tender process, affected the petitioner's challenge to the bidding process. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims. All interim orders were vacated, and all pending CMs were disposed of.
|
