Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs Ganesh Movers And Logistics (P) Ltd. on 6 May, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh
1
ITEM NO.9+39 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Item No.9
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8223/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-03-2022
in MAT No. 71/2022 passed by the High Court At Calcutta)
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
GANESH MOVERS AND LOGISTICS (P) LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s)
( IA No.66081/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT )
Item No.39
SLP (C) No(s). 8325/2022
([TO BE TAKEN UP ALONG WITH ITEM NO. 9 I.E. SLP(C) No.
8223/2022]....................FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA
No.67202/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
and IA No.68894/2022-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES and IA No.68740/2022-APPLICATION FOR
PERMISSION )
Date : 06-05-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Madhavi Dewan, Adv.
Mrs. Priya Puri, AOR
Mr. Yati Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ranjay Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Vishesh Kalra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, AOR
Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Roy, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Tapajit Das, Adv.
Digitally signed by
Charanjeet kaur
Date: 2022.05.09
16:49:19 IST
Reason: UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
We have heard learned ASG at some length. We may not completely agree with the view taken by the 2 learned Single Judge and the Division Bench insofar as the mandatory requirement of meeting the obligations as set out under terms of the tender are concerned but the fact remains that the Technical Committee cleared these cases. It is not the case of one time mistake! Once the Technical Committee in its wisdom clears the cases then for the petitioner to contend the same would not facilitate the participation of the respondents could not be the correct proposition to accept. The mess is the own creation of the petitioners and it is they alone who are to deal with it.
We further clarify that our order should not be construed that the petitioners would not be empowered to inter alia verify the documents in terms of Clause 17 of the terms and conditions of the tender, at the later point of time.
In the end, we may only say that in the manner of submission of the learned ASG, which has merit, the Technical Committee then ought to have rejected the tenders at that stage.
The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly, dismissed.
Pending applications stand disposed of.
(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (POONAM VAID) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)