M/S. M.R.A. Traders vs M/S. Kiocl Limited on 26 November, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S. M.R.A. Traders vs M/S. Kiocl Limited on 26 November, 2020

Bench: P.B. Bajanthri

                           1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

 DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI


       WRIT PETITION NO.57350/2015(GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S. M.R.A. TRADERS
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.110/1,
11TH CROSS, GHOUSIA NAGAR,
KYATHMANHALLI, MYSORE - 570 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
MR. MOHD. RAFEEQ AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O. M.J. AHMED.                      ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ABHINAV .R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     M/S. KIOCL LIMITED
       (FORMERLY KUDREMUKH IRON
       ORE COMPANY LIMITED),
       A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
       ENTERPRISES, HAVING ITS
       REGISTERED OFFICE AT II BLOCK,
       KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 034,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

2.     M/S. MSTC LIMITED,
       A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
       ENTERPRISES, HAVING ITS
       OFFICE AT NO.19/5 & 19/6,
       3RD FLOOR, KAREEN TOWERS,
       CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       MANAGING DIRECTOR.          ... RESPONDENTS
                              2




(BY SRI. Y.K NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1
    SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE R-1 DATED
28.8.2015 VIDE ANN-G AND ETC.,

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING - B GROUP PHYSICAL HEARING / VIDEO
CONFERENCING HEARING (OPTIONAL), THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- PRELIMINARY HEARING -
B GROUP

                        ORDER

In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

a) A Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the communication issued by the 1st Respondent bearing No.D(C)/ MATL/ MSTC/ MRA/E-

AUCTION/65 dated 28.08.2015 at Annexure-G to the petition;


     b)    Consequently direct the Respondents
           to return the pre bid amount of
           Rs.10,00,000/-     immediately     and

forthwith together with interest at the rate of 16% per annum from 18.03.2015 till actual payment having regard to the fact that the pre bid amount was deposited by mistake;

     c)    Grant costs; and

     d)    Pass such other reliefs as this Hon'ble

Court deems fit to grant in the in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Petitioner is a successful bidder pursuant to auction of scrap materials. The question involved in the present petition relates to auction which is required to be taken note of in respect of scrap material in 'lot numbers' or in 'metric tones'. On 17.03.2015, respondents were stated to have informed the bidders that 'price of the scrap material was with reference to metric tones and not lot system. Petitioner contended that same having not been informed, however, the same has been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that each of the bidder was informed through telephonic message and notified through the website. The same is under dispute. Therefore, petitioners are bound by the arbitration clause at para.17 of Annexure - A document. Consequently, Writ Petition is not maintainable and it is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to resort to in accordance with Clause 17 of 'Annexure - A' document. Time spent in the present petition shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of condonation of delay.

3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petition is maintainable in view of the Apex Court decision in HARYANA FINANCIAL 4 CORPORATION AND ANOTHER vs RAJESH GUPTA reported in 2010(1) SCC 655.

4. Even assuming that present writ petition is maintainable, petitioner has not made out a case in view of Annexure - B to the Writ Petition where petitioner has admitted and also sought for condonation of delay which is stated to be a typographical error. Once the petitioner has admitted the error, one has to draw inference that petitioner was aware of the change of pricing from 'lot system' to 'metric tone'. Thus, petitioner has not made out case so as to interfere with Annexure - G. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed on merits.

Sd/-

JUDGE Brn

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court