9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llows: (2) The first appellant, a public sector Government Company invited tenders on July 24,1994 in prescribed form for handling iron and steel materials at its Stockyard at Naini, Allahabad. According to clause 2.1 of the invitation to tender, a tenderer was required to have experience, in its own name and style, of handling at least 20,000 Mt of steel materials in any of the preceding five financial years. Clause 7 of the invitation to tender stipulated that the tender shall be kept valid for a period of 90 days from the date of opening of Part I of the tender and any modification, variation, clarification made thereto by the tenderer during the above period shall be construed as withdrawal of the tender in which event the first appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under Order 7 rule 11 CPC. It is claimed by the appellants that the plaint discloses no cause of action and the same should be rejected. (5) The learned single Judge taking up the aforesaid application of the appellants negatived the contention of the appellants and held that the plaint does disclose a cause of action. The learned single Judge noted that it was the case of the first respondent that Part Ii of the tenders were not opened by the appellants with the ulterior motive to facilitate the grant of extension to M/s. S.K. Sharma to handle the work on ad hoc basis. In the circumstances the learned single Judge rejected the application of the appellants on March 24, 1995. It is this order of the learned single Judge which has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants in the plaint: 3..... THE plaintiff has reasonable apprehension which is supported by the conduct of the defendants that they intend to somehow carry on with the present contractor beyond 31st March, 1995 so that tenders advertised beyond that date the plaintiff would be completely outside from quoting as a eligible tendered . 5. That the defendant No.3 has engaged one M/s. S.K. Sharma as their handling contractor initially on an ad hoc basis w.e.f. 23-5-1993 for a period of 6 months. After such engagement the respondent No.3 in his affidavit to the Allahabad High Court had undertaken to advertise for fresh tenders in order to finalise the contract after an open tender with the successful tenderer within six months from 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e other tenderers by excluding the plaintiff on 23-9-1994. However, till that date the defendants had not sent any intimation informing the plaintiff that his tender has not been found to be acceptable................ 11. That the plaintiff on coming to know about the nefarious design of the defendant No. 2 and 3 to exclude the plaintiff illegally in order to award the contract to M/s. S.K. Sharma, the plaintiff immediately made representations the Director, Commercial and other Senior Officers of the defendants highlighting illegalities being committed by the defendants in excluding the plaintiff while opening the price bid of the other tenderers. The plaintiff has definite knowledge to state that opening of price bid was scheduled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be awarded contract upon opening of the price bid because the plaintiff is the lowest tenderer. How on the date of filing of this suit there is no time left for the defendant to inform the tenderers about the opening of the price bid and accordingly it is a forgone conclusion that the defendants have decided not to open the tender in order to allow M/s. S.K. Sharma to operate handling contract on an ad hoc basis. (8) As is apparent from the case set up by the first respondent in the plaint, allegations of mala fides have been leveled against the appellants in not opening part Ii of the tender documents thereby allowing the tenders to lapse. The case of the respondent is that this was done to benefit M/s. S.K. Sharma who was ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clause 2.1 of the tender. It is also averred that the appellants did not open part Ii of the tenders in order to allow M/s. S.K.Sharma to continue handling contract on ad hoc basis. (10) For the purpose of an application under Order 7 rule 11 Civil Procedure Code What has to be seen is whether or not a meaningful reading of the plaint discloses a cause of action. While considering the application the strength or weakness of the case of the plaintiff is not to be seen. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the suit should be dismissed as the plaint fails to disclose any material particulars of malice alleged against the appellants, it needs to be pointed out that Order 6 rule 10 Civil Procedure Code ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
