Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Bvg India Ltd. Bharat Vikas Group vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 June, 2021
Bench: Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian
1
ITEM NO.38+39 Court 14 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7294/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-03-2021
in WPST No. 4046/2020 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Bombay)
BVG INDIA LTD. BHARAT VIKAS GROUP Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.65177/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.65178/2021-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING AFFIDAVIT)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 5589/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.48587/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)
WITH
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7555/2021
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.67269/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.67270/2021-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING AFFIDAVIT.[TO BE TAKEN UP ALONG WITH ITEM NO. 38 I.E. SLP(C)
No. 7294/2021] )
Date : 11-06-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
(VACATION BENCH)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR
Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Adv.
Mrs. Amrita Panda, Adv.
Mr. Debesh Panda, AOR
Mr. Naveen Hegde, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Ms. Mansa Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Udbhav Gady, Adv.
Digitally signed by
JAGDISH KUMAR
Date: 2021.06.14
16:55:23 IST
Reason:
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sushakumar Kadam, Adv.
Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR
2
Mr. Gopal Shankarnaryanan, Sr, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor, Adv.
Mr. Raj Panchmatia, Adv.
Mr. Peshwan Jehangir, Adv.
Mr. Jaideep Singh Khattar, Adv.
Ms. Anushka Sharda, Adv.
Mr. Anindya Basarkod, Adv.
Ms. Raveena Rai, Adv.
Mr. C Nageshwaran, Adv.
Mr. Nihar Thakkar, Adv.
Ms. Smriti Nair, Adv.
M/S. Khaitan & Co. AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7294/2021 WITH SLP(C) No. 5589/2021 We do not find any error in the well-reasoned detailed order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed accordingly.
However, that an argument is raised is that the period of disqualification in case of termination of contract due to unsatisfactory service is not prescribed in the tender conditions. It can be thus inferred that it would be for the indefinite period.
It is open to the petitioner(s) to submit a representation to the respondents who shall consider the period of disqualification on account of termination due to unsatisfactory service in accordance with law expeditiously.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7555/2021 We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed 3 accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(JAGDISH KUMAR) (NISHA TRIPATHI) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER