AMULYA KUMAR PANDA Vs. BANK OF BARODA, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VADODARA, GUJRAT & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Misc. Petition involves challenge to the order dated 13.7.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in F.A.O. No.136/2016, vide Annexure-5 affirming the order dated 15.9.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar in I.A. No.1/2016 corresponding to C.S. No.1175/2016 appearing at Annexure-3.

(2.) Short background involving the case is, petitioner as plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.1175/2016 as against the Bank of Baroda and its Officers involving a security contract. Petitioner as Proprietor runs a Security Agency in the name and style, M/s.Amulya Kumar Panda Security Agency registered with the Director General Re-settlement, Government of India functioning under the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, which usually sponsors such Security Agencies to provide security to Public Sector Undertakings. Opposite parties wanted security for their branches and on their request to the Director General Re-settlement, it sponsored the name of the plaintiff Agency for security purpose. As a consequence, the parties entered into agreement on 26.3.2014 for supply of security personnel to their Banks for the period from 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2016 for a period of two years. The plaint discloses that as per Clause-19 of Office Memorandum dated 9.7.2012 of the Director General Re-settlement, all sponsorships will be done in clinic order of seniority of registration for a period of two years extendable by further two years at a time and the sponsorship will be done by the duly constituted Board of Officers in accordance with the guidelines. Plaintiff claimed to have performed the assignment satisfactorily. There was no adverse report against it. It is submitted that though the contract was for two years and with provision for extension for another two years on expiry of terms but before much expiry of the term, there was extension of the period of contract by another one year communicated, vide letter dated 31.3.2017 on the same terms and conditions and the period of extension was from 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2017 with further condition that if the plaintiff gets another sponsorship then the contract shall be terminated by giving three months prior notice. Plaintiff made a complain and requested for extension of the contract for two years and also to take out the unilateral condition imposed while extending the contract for one year. In the meantime, the defendant no.3 by his letter dated 4.5.2016 intimated the plaintiff that the defendants have received fresh sponsorship from the Director General Re-settlement including the plaintiff and thus requested it to participate in the fresh tender process while requesting to continue with the security system up to May, 2016 or till a new Agency is selected. Being aggrieved by the letter dated 4.5.2016, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit with the following prayer :-

(3.) Hearing the rival contentions of the parties, the trial court proceeded to examine the ingredients involved in the grant of injunction and in the process, the trial court considering the submissions of both the parties observed, "prima facie does not appear that the Director General Re-settlement has given any guideline for tendering process for selection of the Agency. So the request of the O.Ps. to the petitioner to take part in the tendering process for selection of the Agency and to provide service up to May 2016 or till the new Agency is created does not appear to be in conformity with the guidelines and scheme of the Director General Re-settlement and thus found, the petitioner has a prima facie case on the question regarding the letters dated 29.3.2016 and 4.5.2016 issued by the defendants". Moving to decide the question regarding balance of convenience, the trial court held, balance of convenience leans in favour of the petitioner. On the issue of irreparable loss, taking into consideration some decisions, the trial court observed that in the event the petitioner succeeds in the suit, the loss sustained can be repudiated by way of appropriate damage and accordingly dismissed the Interim Application.