SZECHWAN FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit on the basis of offer dated 15.7.1993 by the plaintiff and the writing dated 23.8.1993 by the defendant, the plaintiff prays for the relief of permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from terminating the management contract of the plaintiff with regard to the guest house at.A-59, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and also perpetually seeking to restrain the defendant from accepting any tender or offer for the management contract of the said guest house contending that the plaintiff's offer dated 15.7.1993 has been accepted by the defendant vide its communication dated 23.8.1993 and that the same is the binding contract which is for the period of five years; that the defendant has not terminated the plaintiff contract and that before impliedly terminating the plaintiff's contract the plaintiff has not been heard and the principles of natural justice have been violated by the defendant and the defendant cannot accept the tender of any other person with regard to the management contract of the guest house in question. By this I.A. ad interim injunction is sought in identical terms pending the hearing and disposal of the suit.

(2.) As against this it is contended by the defendant that the defendant was looking for caterer for their guest house in New Friends Colony to manage on a provisional, temporary and on ad hoc basis till the defendant invited tender for the said guest house. The plaintiff came to know about this and wrote a letter to defendant on 15.7.1993 expressing its willingness to take up the management of the said guest house. The letter dated 15.7.1993 by the plaintiff specified the nature of work and it's charges for the said work; that the plaintiff was clearly told by the defendant that the plaintiff can manage the said guest house on temporary, and on ad hoc basis, only till the defendant floated tender for the management of the said 527 guesthouse. Thereafter, Mr. J.K. Vij, Deputy Chief Personnel Manager purportedly wrote a letter dated 23.8.1993 asking the plaintiff to take over the management of the said guest house from 25.9.1993; that Mr. J.K. Vij, Deputy Chief Personnel Manager was not authorised to write on behalf of the management of the said guest house; that the power to confirm lay with the Director (Marketing and Administration), the letter further purported to state that a formal letter of contract will be issued to the plaintiff separately. On 30.8.1994 the defendant invited the plaintiff to participate in the tenders being floated for the management of the guest houses in Hailey Road and in New Friends Colony. The plaintiff has already fully unconditionally and unqualifiedly participated in the tenders for New Friends Colony. The tenders were opened on 9.9.1994 and the rates of the other caterers who participated were found to be much lower than those quoted by the plaintiff and even lower than what the plaintiff was charging. That there is no contract between the defendant and the plaintiff, as alleged in the plaint. No contract exists, neither there is any privity or binding contract nor any enforceable right exists between the parties. That the plaintiff has waived its rights to challenge the defendant's right for inviting fresh tenders for the guest house at A-59, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and the plaintiff is thus estopped and bound by acquiescence and waiver; that the suit is not maintainable, as prayed, particularly under Section 41 (e) of Specific Relief Act and also by other provisions of the Contract Act; that the suit contract is a contract for personal service and the same cannot be specifically enforced and so there is no question of granting any injunction; that the agreement does not specify the period of the agreement which is also admitted by the plaintiff and the agreement is uncertain, vague and void; that such a contract even if breached would result in damages; that there is no question of violating the principles of natural justice as this is a case of contract; that the defendant is a State and cannot act in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India i.e. in an arbitrary and discreminatory manner not in conformity with standard or rule even in the matter of relationship contractual or otherwise with a third party.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the plaintiff offerred vide letter dated 15.7.1993 to render the services on terms and conditions shown therein (Annexure-A). It is pertinent to note that in this offer the plaintiff has not specified the period for which it was offering its services as regards the management of guest house. Along with the said offer the plaintiff has given the rates of snacks, cold drinks, vegeterian and non-vegeterian lunch and dinner. Vide Annexure-B dated 23.8.1993 the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager of the defendant intimated to the plaintiff that the defendant has decided to give management contract to the plaintiff, of their guest houses at A-59, New Friends Colony, New Delhi with reference to the plaintiff's letter dated 15.7.1993 and subsequent discussion. It is also suggested that formal letter of contract would be issued to the plaintiff separately and the plaintiff was further requested to take immediate steps for starting the guest house latest by 25.9.1993. It is also admitted that no formal letter of contract was issued as stated in Annexure-B. It is also not disputed that the defendant invited tender for the management of the said guest houses vide Annexure-F without giving the addresses. The plaintiff has not averred /disclosed in the plaint that he participated in the tender by filing in his tender giving his rates. Thus the fact of plaintiff having 528 participated in the tender floated by the defendant vide Annexure-F has been suppressed in the plaint. It may be seen that the plaintiff, after filing in the tender in response to Annexure-F and the defendant's letter dated 1.9.1994 has filed the present suit before the opening of the tender i.e. on 9.9.1994. Thus the plaintiff having suppressed the fact of having participated in the tender, that alone, in my opinion, would disentitle the plaintiff to the equitable relief of injunction.