Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1687 (BOM)

G. R. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ONGC Ltd.

2017-08-18

ANOOP V.MOHTA, BHARATI H.DANGRE

body2017
JUDGMENT : Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioners who are a successful bidder by this petition prays for directing the Respondents to accept the 4 x 75 MT Cranes offered by the petitioners/contractor; and also pray to extend the time of 90 days beyond 13th August, 2017, to deploy the cranes other than offered. Pending the petition, an injunction is also sought by the petitioners from en-cashing the bank guarantee dated 01.06.2017 furnished by them. 3. The petitioner (contractor), pursuant to the advertisement submitted the tender for supply of following specific cranes : (a) SANY SCC 1000E - 100 MT Crawler Crane 1 No. ["100 MT SANY"]. (b) CKL 1000i - 100 MT Crawler Cranel No. ["100 MT CKL"]. (c) SANY SCC750E - 75 MTS Crawler Crane 2 Nos. ["75 MT SANY"]. The contract was awarded to the petitioners accordingly on 15.05.2017. The parties are bound by the framework of the tender conditions, including the procedure of submitting documents and inspections of the cranes. There is delay in supplying the cranes. The inspection stage is not yet commenced for various reasons so referred in the correspondences exchanged by and between the parties. There is no communications received by the petitioners so expressed and/or apprehended. The Petitioners are under the obligation to provide the specific products/cranes so offered based upon the advertisement and within the time so prescribed. There is no question of further modification of the order and/or extension of time unless the Respondents agree and/or parties agree by a settlement and/or negotiations. It appears that there is no such negotiation agreement on record. 4. The Petitioner failed to supply the product of cranes as offered. The request for the modification and extension of time to supply unless the Respondent agree and/or negotiate, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is liable to be rejected. 5. There is no case made out to direct the respondents to accept the un-offered cranes. The respondent never extended the date of supply of specified cranes or time for the inspection and of delivery. 6. Under the contract/agreement itself there is a remedy provided. The parties under the terms and conditions of the agreement are required to stick to time and the offer under the contract so awarded. The respondent never extended the date of supply of specified cranes or time for the inspection and of delivery. 6. Under the contract/agreement itself there is a remedy provided. The parties under the terms and conditions of the agreement are required to stick to time and the offer under the contract so awarded. The respondents action, even if any, of inviting tender for short period as sought under the agreement, cannot be interfered with, at the instance of the petitioners. The scope or courts jurisdiction to extend the time and/or to interfere with such terms and conditions, as settled, are limited. Based upon the apprehension so recorded, we see no case is made out by the petitioners to grant any reliefs. The petitioners' remedy is elsewhere. 7. The Petition is dismissed in limine. No cost. Petition dismissed.