LAWS(DLH)-2002-9-118

SAEDAR SINGH ANAND Vs. MSTC LIMITED

Decided On September 17, 2002
SARDAR SINGH ANAND Appellant
V/S
M.S.T.C.LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) . A notice inviting tender was floated on 14.06.2000 for sale of various lots of old TMB Engines belonging to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 lying at VSD Meerut, U.P. The petitioners herein submitted their tenders, which are said to be the highest. They allegedly also complied with all tender conditions. According to the petitioners, having regard to the fact that not only did they deposit the earnest amount, i.e., 20% of the bid amount along with their tender, but also deposited balance 80% within one day, namely, 01.07.2000 on acceptance of their offer; but despite the fact that the same was required to be deposited within one week of the date of acceptance of the tender and they were entitled to obtain the delivery order, no action in this behalf was taken. The petitioners with their letter dated 21.07.2000 submitted that they duly deposited MRO No. 1341 showing payment made with the RBI and also submitted pay order No. 693889 of Syndicate Bank, New Delhi for Rs.46,000/- towards Sales Tax being @ 8% with respondent No. 1 and requested him to issue the delivery order to enable it to take delivery of the purchased goods. The respondent No. 1, however, refused to issue the said delivery order on the ground that certain instructions have been received by respondent No. 3 not to do so. According to the petitioner, thereafter various representations were made, but respondent No.1 herein refused to deliver the sold goods to the petitioner on the ground that an instruction in that regard had been received from respondent No. 2.

(3.) . According to the petitioner, neither terms and conditions of the contract nor the law permits withdrawal from a contract when concluded contract has come into being. The action on the part of the respondents, the petitioner would contend, is highly arbitrary. The writ petitioner in C.W.P. No. 6529 of 2000 inter alia claimed for the following reliefs.:-