TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08.07.2009 whereas the NIT was issued on 19.08.2009 and the bids were opened as late as on 10.09.2009 - The suggestions about loss to the public exchequer are also baseless, apart from being self-defeating - The appeal is dismissed - 141/2010 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2010 - THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAGDISH BHALLA, MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ. Mr.Sharad Kothari for Mr.Dinesh Mehta for the appellant ORDER This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 20.01.2010 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition (CWP No.585/2010) filed by the petitioner in relation to a contractual matter. The relevant facts and background aspects of the matter could be noticed thus: In response ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that too was rejected by the respondent No.2. Ultimately, for the appellant failing to execute the agreement, notice was issued by the respondents on 27.10.2009 (Annex.8) to show cause as to why the deposited amount be not forfeited. The appellant submitted by the communication dated 09.11.2009 (Annex.9) that they were not aware about the reduced rate of tax; and that looking to the reduced rates, they were not in a position to sign the contract, the same being not viable. The appellant, however, came out with a suggestion that if the contract was sought to be awarded to the second highest bidder who had offered an amount of Rs.47,00,000/- then, the same may be awarded to the appellant at 10% above such second highest rate. The repre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sure of all the relevant facts; and the respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong. It is also submitted that the respondents are not entitled to forfeit the amount deposited by the appellant. The submissions remain baseless and untenable. The appellant had made the offer with eyes open and the suggestion as subsequently sought to be made about want of disclosure of facts or anything misleading remains hollow and baseless. It is noticed that in the NIT itself, the department had fixed the reserve price in relation to the contract in question at Rs.39,00,000/-. The notification in relation to tax slab was issued as back as on 08.07.2009 whereas the NIT was issued on 19.08.2009 and the bids were opened as late as on 10.09.2009. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
