Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. As per the brief case as set out in the appeal, it shows that the appellant is a Unit of Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd., in short "SPMCIL" under the administrative control of Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India and it is performing the sovereign functions like production and supply of different security and non-security items for the use of various Central and State Government Departments/Offices. The appellant is engaged in printing in non-judicial stamps, election material for Election Commission of India, Court fee stamps, material for Armed Forces, Postal stationary, CE stamps, Indira Vikas Patras etc. The 1st respondent is a private company registered under MSMED Act, 2006 (Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006) with a registered office at Hyderabad and it is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supply of various types of inks. When the appellant herein floated tenders for the supply of fragrance of the micro encapsulate inks (Rose Ink, Tuberose Ink) 50 kgs each, the 1st respondent submitted its bid and was qualified. The appellant placed a purchase order, dated 18.10.2019 on 1st respondent for supply of inks and total costs of the purchase order placed on respondent No.1 for two varieties of inks of Rs.11,59,928/- and date for delivery was stipulated as 13.11.2019. The 1st respondent supplied the inks on 14.11.2019.

5. It is the further case of appellant that respondent No.1 was bound to supply the material complying the terms and conditions of tender and purchase order. The Unit of the appellant is one of the national importance with very high reputation of maintaining high quality in security features with standards in the printing. The appellant has claimed that in view of breach of contract by respondent No.1 it is a sensitive and important contract where not only the pride of the organization, but the pride of the nation was at stake. The breach of contract committed by respondent No.1 lead the completion of printing of postage stamps delayed.