M/S. SARATHI ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant finally, as the matter is fixed for the final hearing.

(2.) In nutshell, the case of the AppellantOriginal Respondent, is that On 22 July 2010, a tender was invited for "providing and fixing vitrified tiles flooring over existing flooring from Ground to sixth Floor at Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai". The work was awarded to the Appellant by letter dated 22 July 2010. The Appellant by letter dated 5 August 2010, recorded the verbal discussion with the Executive Engineer whereby, the Executive Engineer has directed to use only Johnson vitrified tiles and no other equivalent brand. The Appellant has further informed the Respondent that the Appellant intends to use some other equivalent brand as per condition of contract. By letter dated 16 August 2010, the Respondent again reiterated that only Johnson vitrified tiles and no other equivalent brand be used as the client has approved Johnson vitrified tiles only.

(3.) The Appellant was directed to execute the work with Johnson vitrified tiles only and no other equivalent brand. The Appellant by letter dated 28 September 2010, informed the Respondent that they have already shown their inability to execute the work with Johnson Vitrified tiles as M/s. H.R. Johnson (India) Limited is quoting exorbitant price for the product specified in the tender in comparison to other equivalent brand by taking advantage of the fact that he is the only preferred manufacture by the Respondent. By letter dated 9 October 2010, the Appellant informed the Respondent that they have lodged a complaint with Chief Engineer (Vigilance) CPWD.