PUNJ SONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relevant facts for the decision of this suit are that on 1st May 1969 the petitioner-objector Messrs Punj Sons Private Ltd., New Delhi, entered into a contract with the claimant Union of India for the supply of 8420 milk containers 20 liters quantity. The containers according to the contract were to be coated with "hot dip tin coating". On 13th May 1969 the petitioner wrote to the Director General of Supplies and Disposals for the issue of quota certificate for tin which is to be used for hot dip tin coating of the milk containers. The petitioner on 2nd June, 1969 addressed a communication to the Director General of Technical Development for the issue of release orders for procurement of tin ingots. The petitioner wrote in the letter that they had a contract with the Director General of Supplies and Disposals for supply of 8420 milk containers of the capacity of 20 litres and for the execution of the said contract 5 metric tonnes of tin ingots were urgently required for hot dip tin coating of the containers. The office of the Director General of Supplies and Disposals recommended to the Director General of Technical Development for the issue of the release orders for the procurement of tin ingots. The arbitration record shows that thereafter the correspondence continued between the parties but the Director General of Technical Development or the M.M.T.C. did not pass any order for the release of the tin ingots.

(2.) On 21st August, 1970 the petitioner wrote to the Director General of Supplies and Disposals that they understand that the release orders for tin ingots can only be issued to them after a provision to this effect is made in the A/T by the department and, therefore, requested that the necessary amendment may be made in the A/T. On 24th September, 1970 the respondent replied that there was no stipulation in the A/T for assistance for procurement of tin ingots and that on an ex gratia basis the request could be considered provided price reduction is made. The department, further, wrote that the above was without prejudice to the rights and remedies available to the purchasers under the terms of the contract.

(3.) On 15th October, 1970 the petitioner replied that in view of the increase in the price of raw materials as well as labour it is not possible for them to offer any price reduction and pleaded that the quota certificate for tin ingot may be issued. On 28th November, 1970 the respondent cancelled the contract and wrote to the petitioner as follows :