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 0]

Bombay High Court

Chinmay Enterprises vs Mumbai Port Trust(Mbpt) And Ors on 22 September, 2020

Author: Surendra P.Tavade

Bench: K.R.Shriram, Surendra P.Tavade

                                                                       5oswpl3446.doc

ssp
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                      WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3446 OF 2020


Chinmay Enterprises                                   ...Petitioner
vs.
Mumbai Port Trust (MbPT) & Ors.                       ...Respondents

Mr.P.M.Havnur for the petitioner
Mr.Ayush Agarwal i/b The Law Point for the respondent (Mumbai Port
Trust and Officers)

                          CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM AND
                                 SURENDRA P.TAVADE, JJ.
                          DATE    : SEPTEMBER 22, 2020.
                             (Through Video Conferencing)

P. C. :


.         Mr.Ayush Agarwal appearing for Respondent states that the tender

which is challenged by Petitioner is already awarded to third party in August 2020 and Petitioner is yet to hand over possession of the premises. Counsel for Respondent states that there are various communications which have been addressed by Respondent have been suppressed by Petitioner.

2 To a query posed by the Court to Mr.Havnur as to what is the Petitioner's response to the deficiencies mentioned in Exhibit-H to the petition, , Mr.Havnur states that all those have been complied with. At this point, Mr.Havnur states that the amounts have not been quantified. Mr.Agarwal for Respondent states that tender No.E-100A/2018 referred to in Item No.(2) of Exhibit-H had been awarded to Petitioner in September 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 03:54:26 ::: 5oswpl3446.doc 2019 but till date Petitioner has not yet paid a single amount relating to that tender. Mr.Agarwal for Respondent states that Petitioner has not even taken possession of that premises. Mr.Agarwal for Respondent states that considering all these points, Petitioner has been disqualified.

3 Mr.Agarwal seeks time of one week to bring all these facts and documents on record and to satisfy the Court that Petitioner has suppressed material facts and documents.

4 Reply to be filed within one week. Rejoinder within one week thereafter. Petition be listed for "Admission" on 13th October 2020.

[SURENDRA P.TAVADE, J.]                          [K.R.SHRIRAM, J.]




                                                               2/2



    ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020               ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 03:54:26 :::