EVEREST ENTERPRISES Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought quashing of termination of contract by letter dated 7th August, 2006 and for handing over the peaceful and vacant possession of the contract site for permitting the petitioner to execute the work under the contract dated 29th July, 2006 and a restraint against respondents from awarding/permitting any other person or organization from working at the site under the contract which was awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for a declaratory decree that the agreement dated 29th July, 2006 is subsisting, valid and binding on the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner contended that respondent gets its office maintenance and cleaning work done from the private firms and persons by placing orders on them and for that purpose floats tenders. It was contended that respondent is guilty of committing breach of contract and playing fraud since inception, as initially a tender which was issued earlier, the bid of the petitioner was not opened and on account of intervention by the concerned authorities, the said earlier tender was recalled. " Subsequently,"again the tender was floated and the petitioner was awarded the tender and letter of intent was issued to the petitioner on 17th June, 2005. The bank guarantee which was submitted by the petitioner required some modification which was done by the petitioner, however, there seem to be dispute about the bank guarantee which was sent by the petitioner after modification. As according to the petitioner the bank guarantee which was sent was not accepted by the respondent. Ultimately the petitioner received a letter from the respondent on 28th July, 2006 and an agreement was executed on 29th July, 2006.

(3.) At the time of signing of the agreement, there was hooliganism by old employees which was communicated by the petitioner to the DGM of the respondent. The petitioner, it seems, also issued appointment letters to some of the existing workers to avoid disputes. The appointment letter issued by the petitioner to some of the workers were received however some other workers refused to accept the appointment letters.