Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.Central theme of this lis is supply of 'Fortified Atta' (hereinafter 'FA' http://www.judis.nic.in for brevity) to the 'Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation' ('TNCSC' for brevity). It is not in dispute that this FA was for the purpose of distribution by TNCSC as part of its activity i.e., 'Public Distribution System' ('PDS' for brevity). TNCSC invited tenders for supply of FA and 'M/s.United India Roller Flour Mill (a Division of Savorit Limited)', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'Contractor', was the successful bidder. It is not in dispute that supply of FA by Contractor to TNCSC commenced in March of 2009 and it continued till March of 2012. It is also not in dispute that for such supply, there were 5 agreements for five different periods between March of 2009 and March of 2012. These five agreements are dated 08.09.2009, 29.10.2009, 25.08.2010, 23.02.2011 and 30.01.2012. There is also no dispute or disagreement that these five agreements are adverbatim the same as far as the crucial and critical covanents are concerned.

4. It is submitted that supply of FA through PDS was discontinued by TNCSC owing to a policy decision taken by the Government of Tamil Nadu in this regard and this Court is informed that this happened in April of 2012.

5. There is no dispute or disagreement that supply of FA by contractor to TNCSC had to be done within stipulated/agreed time frames, that there is also provision of imposition of penalty if there is delay in supply within the stipulated / agreed time frames.

(vi) It is agreed that any dispute arising out of non- fulfilment of any of the terms and conditions of the agreement will be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in the city of Chennai.'

9. Certain disputes arose between TNCSC and Contractor as TNCSC alleged that there was delay on the part of contractor in supply of FA. Saying so, TNCSC imposed penalty. Total penalty imposed by TNCSC for the aforesaid 5 year period spanning March of 2009 to March of 2012 is Rs.82,36,749/- (Rupees Eighty Two Lakhs Thrity Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Nine only) and the same has been set out in a tabulated form in the instant OP. As there is no dispute or disagreement about such imposition of penalty, this Court deems it appropriate to usefully extract the said tabulated form of articulation in instant OP. The same reads as follows:

18.It is seen that the letter which the AT has referred to, is a letter dated 04.04.2011 from the contractor to TNCSC. The letter bears reference UIRFM/PDS/10-11 and considering the significance of the letter this Court deems it appropriate to extract and reproduce the letter in its entirety and the same is as follows:

http://www.judis.nic.in

19. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for Contractor, pressed into service a judgment of the Delhi High Court being Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd., This order is dated 31.08.2007. It is reported in 2007 (4) ARBLR 84 Delhi. A perusal of the judgment of the Delhi High Court reveals that said case arose out of a contract awarded by Indian Oil Corporation for designing, detailed http://www.judis.nic.in engineering, procurement, supply, fabrication, erection, testing and commissioning of petroleum Product Terminal Depots along the Kandla-Bhatinda Pipe Line at Jodhpur. That was a case where there was cascading effect. Be that as it may, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for contesting respondents, namely TNCSC, the said order pertains to Liquidated Damages and it does not deal with a scenario where there is a provision for the contract for imposition of penalty. Adverting to clause 9, learned counsel submitted that the instant case or the case on hand, is one where there is provision for imposition of penalty and therefore the aforesaid judgment does not apply to the facts of the instant case. I am unable to disagree with the learned counsel for TNCSC. In other words, learned counsel is correct in pointing out that the said case law does not apply to the factual matrix of the instant case. Further more, the aforesaid letter dated 04.04.2011 from the contractor, which has been scanned and reproduced supra, clearly nails the issue for the contractor and as a sequitur the argument of the learned counsel for contractor predicated on 03.11.2010 letter pales into insignificance.