KGN TECHNOLOGIES Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/plaintiff by way of the present appeal has approached this Court for setting aside the order dated 2.8.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, whereby prayer of the appellant/plaintiff for grant of interim injunction has been declined.

(2.) THE appellant is a firm engaged in the business of advertisement on digital medium including LED Screen Graphical displays and participated in the tender process and after being the highest bidder was declared successful. It is claimed that one of the conditions in the notice inviting tender was that the respondents would provide space for display of the LED screens at two locations, first near Ridge (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Site') and second near Indira Gandhi Sports Complex, The Mall, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the 'Second Site'). Pursuant to acceptance of bid amount, the appellant in furtherance of the terms and conditions of the notice executed an agreement with the respondents on 25.2.2009. It is further claimed that at the time of entering into agreement with the respondents, the officers of the respondents unilaterally altered the terms and conditions of the notice inviting tender and the second site was shifted below the Church, which was not at all feasible for installing LED screen. The plaintiff/appellant had quoted the rates after working out all the logistics, particularly the sites where the screens were required to be installed. Out of the income the plaintiff was to remit the rentals and other expenses. After execution of the agreement on 25.2.2009, both screens were inspected by the officials of the respondent Corporation and the first LED screen was installed on 27.2.2009, but the second LED screen could not be installed at the second site till date. It is claimed that both the screens cost the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 38,00,000/ - and the annual maintenance charges being paid by the plaintiff are to the tune of Rs. 1,44,000/ -. Because of the acts of the respondents, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming their in the following reliefs: -

(3.) THE learned trial Court vide a detailed judgment dismissed the application for grant of ad interim injunction, which order has been assailed by way of the present appeal on the ground that the same is against law and facts of the case and the learned trial Court failed to take into consideration the fact that till February, 2014 the respondents have failed to provide space for installation of the second LED at the second site and in this way the appellant has suffered huge financial losses. It is further alleged that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the contract of agreement had in fact been violated by the respondents and not by the appellant and it is lastly contended that the leaned Court below has wrongly given weightage to the condition of tender that under the BOT scheme after five years the appellant was required to handover and transfer the LED to the respondents, without taking into consideration that it was the respondents who themselves have failed to comply with the condition and has not handed over the proper place for installation of second LED for the last five years.