Delhi High Court - Orders
Underwater Services Company Limited vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 27 January, 2022
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9575/2021&CM APPL. 4655/2022
UNDERWATER SERVICES COMPANY LIMITED..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Rishi
Agrawala, Mr. Ankit Banati, Ms. S.
Priya & Ms. Vishakha, Advs. for
petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Bimal Rajshekhar, Mr. Aditya Verma
& Mr. Priyamvada Mishra, Advs. for
the review petitioner.
versus
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. V N Koura with Mr. S Sirish
Kumar, Advs. for IOCL.
Mr. Apoorv Kurup, CGSC with Ms.
Akshata Singh, Adv. for
R-2UOI/DGS.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 27.01.2022 REVIEW PET. 20/2022&CM APPLs. 4600-02/2022
1. We have heard Mr. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner at some length.
2. The submission of Mr. Sethi is that the manner in which the Right of First Refusal (ROFR) was sought to be exercised by the petitioner, and also interpreted by the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:31.01.2022 19:36:09 (IOCL) is incorrect. In support of this submission, he has drawn the attention of the Court to clause 23.16.0 of the RFP. The submission is that since only one of the several vessels offered by the review petitioner was a foreign flag vessel, the ROFR could have been offered, if at all, only in respect of that particular vessel, and the petitioner could have been asked to match price as offered by the review petitioner in respect of that vessel. If, despite matching the price offered by the review petitioner in respect of that vessel, the overall bid offered by the review petitioner was lower, the contract should have only been awarded to the review petitioner and not the petitioner. The submission is that the petitioner could not have been given the right to match the overall price in respect of all the vessels, which included Indian flag vessels offered by the review petitioner, and awarded the contract on the basis of ROFR.
3. The correspondence placed on record by the review petitioner, firstly, shows that the review petitioner became aware of the pendency of the writ petition before this Court as filed by the petitioner, on 31.10.2021. Interim orders were passed during the pendency of the writ petition, which was eventually allowed on 09.12.2021. The review petitioner, however, did not choose to jump into the fray, and left it to the IOCL to pursue the writ petition. In our view, the petitioner was not obliged to implead the review petitioner, since it was the action of the respondent-IOCL in, firstly, offering ROFR and, thereafter, withdrawing the same, which was called in question in the writ petition.
4. What is pertinent to note from the correspondence placed on record by the review petitioner itself is that when the review petitioner was asked to extend the validity of its bid, the petitioner decided to extend Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:31.01.2022 19:36:09 (conditionally) the same only upto 31.10.2021 and no further.
5. That being the position, in our view, the issue raised in the present review petition with regard to interpretation of clause relating to ROFR is academic.
6. Therefore, while dismissing the present review petition and the aforesaid applications, we leave the issue with regard to interpretation of clause relating to ROFR contained in the Director General Shipping Circular No. 2/2021 open for consideration, and we make it clear that the legal issue raised by Mr. Sethi with regard to interpretation of the ROFR clause has not been gone into by us in our judgement dated 09.12.2021.
7. With these observations, we dismiss the review petition.
VIPIN SANGHI, J JASMEET SINGH, J JANUARY 27, 2022 SS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:31.01.2022 19:36:09