C V ENTERPRISES Vs. BRAITHWAITE AND CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the appellant, M/s. C. V. Enterprises, a Partnership firm, has challenged the propriety of the judgment and order dated March 21, 1984 of D. K. Sen, J. dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.

(2.) On September 2, 1982, respondent 1 Braithwaite & Co. Ltd., which is a Government company, issued a notice in the Statesman, Calcutta inviting tenders for the purchase of REP licences that would be issued to respondent 1, inter alia, against the exports of structural to Bahrain and exports of wagons to Vietnam under export contracts registered in 1966-67 and 1978-79. The enclosure to the tender notice was a chart containing particulars of the exports for which the REP licences were applied for. The particulars included the value of REP licences against the exports of wagons to Vietnam as Rs. 45,52,843/- and the exports of structural to Bahrain as Rs. 3,03,988/-. In response to the said notice, the appellant submitted his offer for the purchase of REP licences of respondent 1. After the submission of the offer by the appellant, there were some discussions and correspondence between the appellant and respondent 1. Ultimately, respondent 1 by its letter dated February 19, 1983 accepted the order of the appellant. The terms and conditions of the contract are contained in the said letter, which is set out below:

(3.) It is the case of the appellant that under the said contract, the appellant became entitled to have the transfer of the REP licences that would be issued to respondent 1 against the exports of Railway wagons to Vietnam and P. S. Tanks (Structurals) to Bahrain during the years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82. On the basis of the said contract, the appellant paid a further sum of Rs. 4,85,683.10 by a pay order issued by the Bank of Madurai Limited, Calcutta Branch. Pursuant to Clause 2 (c) of the contract the appellant took up liaison work for Securing the issue of REP licences against the import entitlement of respondent 1. It is the case of the appellant that after the relevant papers were handed over to the appellant by respondent 1, the appellant came to know that the value of the REP licences was much higher than that mentioned in the said chart being an enclosure to the tender notice. It is not disputed that respondent 1 was and is still entitled to REP licence of the value of Rs. 1,07,08,210/- in respect of, Vietnam exports and licences of the value of Rs. 9,12,000/- in respect of Bahrain exports and not Rs. 45,52,843/- and Rs. 3,03,988/-respectively as believed to be and applied for. The real value was, however, brought to the notice of respondent 1 by the appellant as revised applications for the issuance of the said REP licences had to be made before the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (JCC & E). Respondent 1 signed the revised applications. The liaison was completed by the appellant by May 31, 1983 in respect of REP licences to be issued against exports to Bahrain. The appellant accordingly, by its letter dated June 3, 1983 while intimating to respondent 1 about the completion of the said liaison work, sent a Bank draft for Rs. 2,25,000/- in full payment of the price for the transfer of, REP licences against exports to Bahrain. Thereafter, although respondent 1 got the REP licences, by its letter dated June 24, 1983, respondent 1 resoled from the contract on the ground that the contract was void and of no effect.