Bombay High Court
G R Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs Ongc Ltd. And Anr on 18 August, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
spb/ 906wpl2113-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L.) NO. 2113 OF 2017
1. G.R. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., ... Petitioners.
having office at Poonam Chambers,
Dr.Annie Besant Road,Worli,Mumbai-18
2. R. D. Hariani,Adult, Director of G.R.
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd..
V/s.
1. ONGC Ltd., ... Respondents.
st
office at 1 floor, Administrative
Building, Nhava Supply Base,
Post Nhava, Tal.Panve, Dist. Raigad,
Maharashtra - 410 206.
2. Union of India, address at Aaykar
Bhavan, Maharishi Karve road,
Churchgate,Mumbai - 400 021.
---
Mr. J. P. Sen, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Ritcha Sahay i/by
Bimal Rajasekhar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate a/w. Mr. Puneet Vaghani, Mr.
Hemant Prabhulkar, Advocate i/by Jurisperitus for Respondent
No.1.
---
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
SMT.BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ.
DATE : 18th AUGUST, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.)
1 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard
finally by consent of the parties.
Borey 1/4
spb/ 906wpl2113-17.odt
2 The Petitioners who are a successful bidder by this
petition prays for directing the Respondents to accept the 4 x
75 MT Cranes offered by the petitioners/contractor; and also
pray to extend the time of 90 days beyond 13th August, 2017,
to deploy the cranes other than offered. Pending the petition,
an injunction is also sought by the petitioners from en-cashing
the bank guarantee dated 01.06.2017 furnished by them.
3 The petitioner (contractor), pursuant to the
advertisement submitted the tender for supply of following
specific cranes :
(a) SANY SCC 1000E - 100 MT Crawler Crane -1 No.
["100 MT SANY"].
(b) CKL 1000i - 100 MT Crawler Crane- 1 No. ["100 MT
CKL"].
(c) SANY SCC750E - 75 MTS Crawler Crane - 2 Nos.
["75 MT SANY"].
The contract was awarded to the petitioners accordingly on
15.05.2017. The parties are bound by the framework of the
tender conditions, including the procedure of submitting
documents and inspections of the cranes. There is delay in
supplying the cranes. The inspection stage is not yet
commenced for various reasons so referred in the
correspondences exchanged by and between the parties.
Borey 2/4
spb/ 906wpl2113-17.odt
There is no communications received by the petitioners so
expressed and /or apprehended. The Petitioners are under the
obligation to provide the specific products / cranes so offered
based upon the advertisement and within the time so
prescribed. There is no question of further modification of the
order and/or extension of time unless the Respondents agree
and/or parties agree by a settlement and/or negotiations. It
appears that there is no such negotiation agreement on record.
4 The Petitioner failed to supply the product of cranes
as offered. The request for the modification and extension of
time to supply unless the Respondent agree and/or negotiate,
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is liable to be
rejected.
5 There is no case made out to direct the respondents
to accept the un-offered cranes. The respondent never
extended the date of supply of specified cranes or time for the
inspection and of delivery.
6 Under the contract / agreement itself there is a
remedy provided. The parties under the terms and conditions
of the agreement are required to stick to time and the offer
under the contract so awarded. The respondents action, even if
any, of inviting tender for short period as sought under the
agreement, cannot be interfered with , at the instance of the
Borey 3/4
spb/ 906wpl2113-17.odt
petitioners. The scope or courts jurisdiction to extend the time
and/or to interfere with such terms and conditions, as settled,
are limited. Based upon the apprehension so recorded, we see
no case is made out by the petitioners to grant any reliefs. The
petitioners' remedy is elsewhere.
7 The Petition is dismissed in limine. No cost.
(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE,J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.)
Borey 4/4
