9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 13, 2007, auction was held and respondent No.1 was declared as the successful tenderer. It would be evident from the sale order dated March 16, 2007 that the price was agreed upon at 1,132/- per metric ton plus VAT of 4% aggregating to 11,32,00,000/- plus VAT of 4%. The appellant duly paid 176 lakhs being 15% of the total sale value on March 15, 2007. Out of the said amount, 58.86 lakhs being 5% of the total sale value was retained as Security Deposit and a sum of 117.74 lakhs was kept for adjustment along with the final instalment. The balance payment was to be made in two monthly instalments with the grace period of 30 days with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The entire material was to be lifted within four months from the date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that it is required to be maintained as 'inviolate' for tiger population, and the permission which has been refused cannot be granted in view of section 38(v) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 as amended in 2006. In this background, the writ petition was allowed and SAIL was directed to refund the entire amount within four weeks from the date of the order. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal before this Court. It was contended before us that this is a case where there was a breach of contract which was committed by the respondent and thereby SAIL has a right to forfeit the earnest money and security deposit on the basis of such breach. It is also stated whether it would come within the purview of a case of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... low the transportation through the said Tiger Reserve under Section 38(v) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 as amended in 2006. By the said letter, the request to lift and transport the iron ore fines was rejected. Therefore, the contract which was entered into between the parties, as would be evident, is in violation of the said Act and is against public policy. Hence, the contract cannot be given effect to as the contract is already frustrated. He also drew our attention to the fact that the appellant by a fax message dated July 6, 2007 duly relaxed condition Nos.8, 9 and 10 as stipulated in the G.O. dated 2nd May, 2007. Learned senior counsel further contended that by relaxing the said conditions, there was no need for the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
