Delhi High Court
Manglam Express Cargo Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India & Anr on 16 December, 2016
$~27 to 30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11364/2015 & C.M.No.29867/2015
MANGLAM EXPRESS CARGO PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Ashish Mohan with Mr.Mohit
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Jagjit Singh with Mr.Shipra
Shukla and Mr.Preet Singh,
Advocates.
+ W.P.(C) 11365/2015 & C.M.No.29869/2015
MANGLAM EXPRESS CARGO PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Ashish Mohan with Mr.Mohit
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Jagjit Singh with Mr.Shipra
Shukla and Mr.Preet Singh,
Advocates.
+ W.P.(C) 11708/2015 & C.M.No.31144/2015
GOLDEN LOGISTICS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Ashish Mohan with Mr.Mohit
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Jagjit Singh with Mr.Shipra
Shukla and Mr.Preet Singh,
Advocates.
W.P.(C) 11364/2015 & Ors. Page 1 of 4
+ W.P.(C) 11819/2015 & C.M.No.31398/2015
M/S GOLDEN LOGISTICS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Ashish Mohan with Mr.Mohit
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Jagjit Singh with Mr.Shipra
Shukla and Mr.Preet Singh,
Advocates.
% Date of Decision : 16th December, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present writ petitions have been filed seeking quashing of
orders dated 28th October, 2015 passed by the Divisional Railway
Manager, whereby the leasing contracts pertaining to the petitioners
were terminated and the earnest money deposits were forfeited.
Petitioners were also debarred from participating in any tender
pertaining to the Railways for two years.
2. Despite notices having been accepted by the respondents nearly
a year ago, no counter-affidavits have been filed. Consequently, this
Court has no other option but to proceed ahead with the matters.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the impugned
action of the Railways is bad in law as the acceptance letters of the
petitioners' bids were issued after the offer of the petitioners had
lapsed. In support of his statement, learned counsel for the petitioners
relies upon Clause 4 of the tender conditions, which reads as under:
"I/We agree to abide by the above rates quoted by me/us
for a period of 90 days from the date of opening of this
tender."
4. Thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, the offers
of the petitioners were valid only for a period of ninety days from the
date of opening of the tenders. He states that as the tenders were
opened on 1st May, 2015, the offers were valid only till 29th July, 2015
and as the acceptance letters were admittedly issued on 30 th July,
2015, there was no concluded contract between the parties at all.
5. Mr.Jagjit Singh, learned counsel for the Railways, on
instructions of Mr.Tyagi, ACM, fairly states that the bids furnished by
the petitioners had been accepted one day after the offers had lapsed
i.e. beyond 90 days.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid admitted position, it is apparent
that the acceptance letters were issued after the offers made by the
petitioners had already lapsed and were no longer valid.
7. Further, Section 6(2) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as
under:-
6. Revocation how made
A proposal is revoked-
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(2) by the lapse of the time prescribed in such
proposal for its acceptance, or if no time is so prescribed,
by the lapse of a reasonable time, without communication
of the acceptance...."
8. Since in the present cases the time prescribed in the offer letters
had lapsed prior to their acceptance, the offers stood revoked under
Section 6(2) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
9. Consequently, the present writ petitions are allowed and the
impugned orders passed by the respondents are set aside.
10. Further, the respondents are directed to refund the earnest
money deposited by the petitioners within a period of six weeks from
today.
MANMOHAN, J
DECEMBER 16, 2016
KA
