Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl) vs M/S Duraline India Pvt. Ltd. ... on 17 September, 2024

Bench: Pankaj Bhandari, Praveer Bhatnagar

[2024:RJ-JP:39040-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

           D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2099/2024

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl), A Government Of India
Enterprise,     Through       Its    Chief General            Manager, Rajasthan
Telecom Circle, Bsnl, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                       Versus
M/s Duraline India Pvt. Ltd., (A Company Duly Incorporated
Under The Complete Act, 1956) Having Registered Office At A/10
Sanskrit Bhawan, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi-110 067
Through Its Assistant General Manager-(F And A) And Authorized
Signatory Sh. Devendra Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. M.l. Sharma
Aged About 62 Years, R/o A-2/a-158, Janakpuri, New Delhi
-110058
                                                                    ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr.Kapil Sharma with Mr.Vaibhav Jhankara for Mr.Tej Prakash Sharma For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 17/09/2024
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 23rd February, 2024 passed by the Commercial Court No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan - II, whereby the application, filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act of 1996") against the award dated 26th February, 2020 was dismissed, whereby learned Arbitrator has directed the appellant to refund the forfeited bid amount of Rs.5,90,110/- to the respondent.
(Downloaded on 06/10/2024 at 12:23:26 AM)

[2024:RJ-JP:39040-DB] (2 of 3) [CMA-2099/2024]

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent was the lowest bidder and as per the terms of agreement, the appellant could have distributed the work to five lowest bidders and in case, other bidders were not willing to perform the work, the same was to be performed by the respondent, who was L-1 bidder.

3. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this present case, the work, which was allotted to L-5 bidder, was performed by L-5 bidder, however, L-2, L-3 and L-4 bidders withdrew from the contract and refused to perform the work, hence, the said work was to be performed by L-1 bidder i.e. the respondent. It is further contended that the respondent refused to perform the work and consequently, APO was cancelled.

4. It is further contended that since the respondent had refused to perform the work, the appellant has not committed any error in forfeiting the bid amount.

5. We have considered the contentions and have carefully perused the award as well as the order passed by the Commercial Court No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan - II.

6. From perusal of the award, it is revealed that a notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon it. In response to the said notice, the respondent stated that it wants to maintain good relationship & unconditionally accepted the APO and it also requested the appellant not to cancel the APO. Learned Arbitrator has taken note of the entire facts and circumstances and has not committed any error in directing for refund of forfeited bid amount of Rs.5,90,110/-. The Commercial Court has also dealt with the (Downloaded on 06/10/2024 at 12:23:26 AM) [2024:RJ-JP:39040-DB] (3 of 3) [CMA-2099/2024] objections raised by the appellant and has confirmed the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator.

7. The present is not a case where arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration. The present is also not a case where it is in contravention of fundamental policy of Indian law or it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice. The award is also not vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award.

8. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the present appeal and hence, the same is dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J Preeti Asopa /2 (Downloaded on 06/10/2024 at 12:23:26 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)