9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No.1 was far below the figure of ₹ 30,78,000/-. The High Court was clearly in error in accepting this plea on behalf of respondent No.1 Now, the question that remains to be considered is whether requirement to furnish Annual Turnover and Net Worth for last three years was a mandatory condition for infraction of which the bid made by the appellant had to be rejected. We, therefore, allow this Appeal and set aside the decisions rendered by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court in the present matter. The Letter of Intent dated 02.03.2010 and consequent Sale Deed dated 31.03.2010 in favor of the appellant are held valid and correct. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5101 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 19310 OF 2013 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Respondent No.1 had given a bid of ₹ 17,00,000/- which was the 4th highest. The bid of the appellant having been found to be the highest, it was accepted and Letter of Intent was issued on 02.03.2010. Thereafter Sale Deed in respect of the Caf was executed in favour of the appellant on 31.03.2010. After the execution of the Sale Deed, respondent No.1 who has been running a Dhaba next to the site, filed CWP No.1557 of 2010 in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh submitting that the appellant had not submitted his annual turnover and net worth for last three years as stipulated in the advertisement. No allegation was made of any arbitrariness, bias, favoritism or malice in the auction process. The appellant filed his reply in opposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnover and net worth for last three years was not complied with by the appellant. The Division Bench thus dismissed LPA No.441 of 2012 by its order dated 20.05.2013. This appeal challenges the correctness of the decisions so rendered by the High Court. While issuing notice, this Court by order dated 04.07.2013 had directed that Status quo be maintained by the parties. By subsequent order dated 08.10.2014 the respondent No.1 was directed to deposit in this Court a sum of ₹ 30,00,000/-, which the respondent had offered after the finalization of the bid. The amount having been deposited by the respondent No.1, it now stands invested in an interest bearing term deposit. We have heard Mr. Tushar Bakshi, learned Advocate for the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditions of eligibility and the others which are merely ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by the condition. In the first case the authority issuing the tender may be required to enforce them rigidly. In the other cases it must be open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance of the condition in a appropriate cases. In the present case, the site in question was to be sold on outright sale basis. The advertisement or the stipulations therein did not contemplate creation and or continuation of any relationship between the parties calling for continued existence of any particular level of financial parameters on part of the bidder, except the ability to pay the price as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
