IN RE: CALPRO FOOD (PVT.) LTD. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application has been filed for vacating the orders of stay dated 6.9.95 and 12.9.95 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Mrs. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the applicant/respondent No.4 in support of the application has principally raised two questions. Learned counsel firstly submits that having regard to the facts of the case it would appear that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Learned counsel points out from the tender notice which is contained in Annexure 'E' to the application for vacating that tender was issued from New Delhi. Clauses 3 and 6 of the said tender which read as follows :

(2.) Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners however, submits that the petitioner No. 1 company is a Government of West Bengal Undertaking and it had been receiving contract for supplying a chemical known as Calcium Propionate for the last 9 years on the basis of negotiations after the tenders were opened. According to the learned counsel, the tender was submitted on 24.5.95 and the negotiation was to be held on 20.6.95, but in the meanwhile on 22.6.95 a letter by way of Fax was sent by one Mr. Sharad Yadav. Member of Parliament addressed to the Minister -in -charge of Public Undertakings, Government of West Bengal, in terms whereof it was suggested that the petitioner No.1 being a public sector undertaking should not quote a price below the cost of price pursuant whereto comments were sought for by the State of West Bengal and the petitioners replied thereto in terms of its letter dated 3.7.95. Learned counsel contends that in this background the negotiation was cancelled and the tender of the applicant Messrs. Calpro Food (Pvt) Ltd., was accepted. It is submitted that this court has territorial jurisdiction in view of the fact that the conspiracy was hatched as against the petitioner, a part whereof took place in Calcutta, in as much as, while forbidding the petitioners from attending the negotiation, behind its back the tender of the applicant/respondent No. 4 was accepted.

(3.) Mr. Chowdhury appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, however, submits that in the instant case the arbitration clause shall apply, and in support of his aforementioned contention has relied on a decision of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Raipur Alloys & Steel Ltd. v/s. Union of India, reported in : AIR 1988 Delhi 53. Learned counsel points out that from the writ application itself it would appear that the writ petitioners had been lowering the rates to a great extent and keeping in view the fact that negotiations used to take place by way of exception and not as a matter or rule, and further in view of the fact that this time the company received a legal advice that no such negotiation need be taken recourse to, the tender of the applicant Messrs. Calpro Food (Pvt.) Limited was accepted. It is submitted that the allegation of conspiracy as against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has no substance at all.