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 0, Cited by 1]

Orissa High Court

Vision Spring vs Odisha State Medical Corporation Ltd. ... on 29 October, 2021

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                       ARBP No.31 of 2021




            Vision Spring                               ....              Petitioner
                                             Mr. P.K. Satapathy, Advocate
                                      -versus-
            Odisha State Medical Corporation Ltd. ....      Opposite Parties
            and Others
                                                Mr. P.K. Muduli, Advocate

                         CORAM:
                         THE CHIEF JUSTICE


                                         ORDER

Order No. 29.10.2021

05. 1. The arbitration clause in the bid documents reads as under:

"6.39.1 If dispute or difference of any kind shall arise between the Tender Inviting Authority/User Institution and the successful bidder in connection with or relating to the contract, the parties shall make every effort to resolve the same amicably by mutual consultations."

2. It is only when the above effort fails, the parties have agreed to go in for arbitration. The crucial term is "successful bidder" and the dispute has to be "in connection with or relating to the contract".

3. The contention of the Petitioner that it is the successful bidder is based on a communication dated 26th November, 2018 (Annexure-

5) which is titled "Revised Bidders' Selection/Rejection List". It Page 1 of 2 appears from the said communication that although the Petitioner was identified by an auto generated process as the "lowest bidder (L-1)", the bid was in fact cancelled since the bidder was said to have a retail outlet which is contrary to Clause 5.2.1 (v) of the tender documents.

4. While learned counsel for the Petitioner states that this reason is without basis, in view of the rejection of the bid the Petitioner cannot be termed a "successful bidder". Therefore, the Petitioner stands precluded from invoking the arbitration clause.

5. This will, however, not prevent the Petitioner from seeking other appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

6. The ARBP is disposed of in the above terms.

7. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice S.K. Jena/P.A. Page 2 of 2