Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. Dr. Singhvi, appearing for the first respondent, stated that there was no Indian company with its own design and that each Indian company for the purpose of erection of cooling tower and cooling water treatment plant had to depend upon a foreign design, and that the job requirement in fact was mainly to give shape to that design by constructing in accordance therewith. He said the petitioner was also having Morley Design, a design of an American company Morley, and in this connection reference was made to various documents filed by the first petitioner where its logo in an elliptical shape showed the word "Paharpur" and underneath it the word "Morley". Reference was also drawn to a draft document prepared by Technology in Indian Cooling Tower Industry in July 1988, and an extract of this was filed during course of arguments by Dr. Singhvi, and in this names of seven cooling tower contractors have been mentioned B & R does not find mentioned therein. Seven companies including the petitioner are shown to have foreign collaborators, but two of these, namely, Gammon and Thermo pack, are not shown to have any foreign collaborator. We do not think any advantage can be drawn by the respondents from this document. The minutes prepared by the first respondent BRPL clearly show that the petitioner as a tendered possessed the experience in successful execution of a cooling tower plant and cooling water treatment plant. During course of hearing we were also told that five parties including the petitioner and B & R had purchased the tender documents, and out of them only three submitted their tenders. We do not know the other two companies which did not submit their tenders had any foreign collaborator or not, or as to how many companies in the cooling tower industry have of today foreign collaborators. To have a foreign design and to have a foreign collaborator are certainly two different things.