Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

30.In the affidavit filed by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, they have also highlighted the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondents No.1 and 2 in the Writ Petition, W.P.(MD)No.23633 of 2015 filed by M/s.Turbo Engineers, the fourth respondent herein, who is a competitor, wherein, the respondents 1 and 2 in the said Writ Petition, have denied the allegations levelled by M/s.Turbo Engineers, against the petitioner with regard to the improper execution of the project by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has contended that the action contemplated in the show cause notice, dated 05.01.2018 is contrary to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in W.P(MD)No. 23633 of 2015 filed by M/s.Turbo Engineers.

34.M/s.Turbo Engineers has filed W.P.(MD)No.23633 of 2015 seeking to declare them as a successful bidder in place of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not a manufacturer and also on the ground that they supplied Chinese products, which is not in accordance https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis with the tender conditions. M/s.Turbo Engineers is a rival competitor of the petitioner. M/s.Turbo Engineers, also participated in the tender. The relief sought for by M/s.Turbo Engineers, in W.P.(MD)No.23633 of 2015, has now become infructuous in view of the fact that the contract has already been executed by the petitioner and they have also received payments from the respondents 1 and 2.

35.There is also no privity of contract between the petitioner and M/s.Turbo Engineers. The complaint was only given by M/s.BMW Steels Limited against the petitioner for the alleged supply of bogus products claiming to be that of M/s.BMW Steels Limited. As observed earlier, M/s.BMW Steels Limited, has not initiated any legal action against the petitioner for the loss of its reputation and for recovery of their loss. Since the relief sought for by M/s.Turbo Engineers in W.P. (MD)No.23633 of 2015 has now become infructuous, they have no say about the present dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2.

36.The entire materials/evidence pertaining to the execution of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis contract by the petitioner is only with the respondents 1 and 2 and M/s.Turbo Engineers, who is a competitor for the petitioner, does not have any locus standi to intervene in these proceedings and support the case of respondents 1 and 2. They have also not placed any evidence available on their side to substantiate the contents of the show cause notice issued by the respondents 1 and 2 to the petitioner on 05.01.2018. Excepting for filing an impleading application and reiterating the contention of the respondents 1 and 2, admittedly, they have not produced any fresh incriminating evidence against the petitioner with regard to the allegations levelled in the show cause notice, dated 05.01.2018.