UNIFLEX CABLES LTD Vs. MTNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under sub-section (6) of Section 11 read with sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the application are as follows.

(3.) THE applicant is a public limited company having its registered office at Chandra Mahal, 241 Shamaldas Gandhi Marg, Mumbai and is engaged, inter alia, in the production and supply of PIJF Telecom cables. The respondent floated a tender dated 12. 05. 2004 for supply of Solid Polythene Insulated, Fully Filled, polythene Sheathed U/g Telecom Cables vide a tender document, which is enclosed with the application as Annexure A-1. The petitioner submitted its bid for the aforementioned tender enquiry, which was opened on 07. 10. 2003. Along with the said bid, the petitioner also submitted three bank guarantees as bid security issued by the Union Bank of India, Mumbai of Rs. 5,39,000/- Rs. 10,59,000/- and rs. 16,64,000/- respectively. The petitioner emerged as one of the successful bidders and the lowest offeror for three tendered items, i. e. , 50/0. 5 MMA, 800/0. 5 (UA) and 800/0. 5 MMA. The respondent, vide letter dated 07. 08. 2004, counter offered lower rates than those offered by the petitioner and other bidders and sought the petitioner's acceptance in response to such lower rates (Annexure A-3 ). The petitioner vide letter dated 11. 08. 2004 accepted the lower rates and accordingly became eligible to have the contract finalised in its favour for the three sizes of cables aforesaid (Annexure A-4 ). The respondent, however, did not place the contract and subsequently again gave a counter offer to the petitioner by a letter dated 17. 08. 2004 purporting to be in the form of a Purchase Order. According to the petitioner, the said purchase Order dated 17. 08. 2004 was a counter offer because it placed order for only two of the three items for which acceptance had been given by the petitioner. A copy of the same is enclosed with the petition as Annexure A-5. The petitioner, vide letter dated 19. 08. 2004, which is enclosed with the petition as Annexure A-6, wrote to the respondent as follows:-