RATTAN LAL KATYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short "the Act") seeks declaration that there is no valid and concluded contract and as such there is no arbitration agreement also between the parties.

(2.) The Petitioner is doing business under the name of Malik Company as its sole proprietor. It appears that in pursuance of tender enquiries issued from the office of Director General of Supplies and Disposals (for short "the DGS&D"), Government of India, the Petitioner had submitted his tender inter alia to be opened on 19.7.1980 for the supply of Myrabolams Nuts. This was not accepted and on 9.10.1980 fresh quotations being invited, the Petitioner had submitted the following quotations :- (i) Our rate is Rs.137.85 gross for nett, if the order is placed for full quantity. We will allow you 2% discount. (ii) For despatching from M.P. (iii) Inspection at various places at despatching station, by OEF, Kanpur. (iv) No sales tax will be charges extra, but 'D' form is required in the name Malik Co. Shodal, all correspondence will be done with Kanpur Office. (v) Stores will be packed in old gunny bags. (vi) Gross weight will be treated as nett for payment. (vii) 95% payment against Inspection Notes and R/R. (viii) Inspection note must be issued at spot at the time of Inspection. (ix) Our rate is valid upto 30th October, 1980. (x) Order will be placed in the name of our Branch Office Shodal". (xi) Delivery after 60 days from the date of receipt of the 'firm' order 4000 quintal per months. . (xii) Delivery date mean the date on which we offer the store for Inspection.

(3.) On being asked by the respondent, the Petitioner also agreed to the following terms for his tender :- 1. Weighment at consignee's end; 2. To furnish security deposit @ 5%; 3. To allow 2% discount on the quoted price of Rs 137.85 per quintal. It is stated that the Respondent accepted the tender and issued Acceptance of Tender (for short "AT") dated 2.3.1981. This contained vital variations which are contrary to the tender offer of the Petitioner in respect of (1) period of delivery; (2) weighment for purposes of payment; (3) quantity increased from quoted quantity of 18650 quintals to 18750 quintals and further increased by 4562.50 quintals. It is alleged that the Petitioner had not accepted and confirmed this AT being at variation of his tender and as such no concluded and valid contract between the parties was arrived at and hence there is no arbitration agreement also between the parties.