9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne No.2 the contract period was three years commencing from 18.3.2010. For Zone No.3 the contract period was three years commencing from 17.10.2011 and for Zone No.4 the contract period was three years commencing from 20.09.2011. 3. During the course of such period serious disputes arose between the petitioner and the Corporation. The Corporation therefore passed an order dated 17.8.2012 and terminated the petitioner's contract for all four zones. On 13.9.2012, the Corporation passed further order debarring the petitioner from doing any business with the Corporation for a period of three years. 4. The petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.14541 of 2012 challenging such orders. The High Court set aside the order of blacklisting on the ground that the same was passed without hearing. Insofar as order of termination of contract is concerned, the court allowed the petitioner to make a representation. The petition was disposed of on 9.11.2012 accordingly. 5. The petitioner filed writ petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.16743 and 16744 of 2012 and again questioned the legality of the order of the Corporation of premature termination of the contract with respect to zo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Standing Committee that multiple disputes concerning the contracts in question are pending before various courts. It was pointed out that the petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No.3737 of 2013 seeking releasing of the security deposit of Rs. 53.48 lacs (round about) after adjusting pending license fee of Rs. 14.06 lacs (round about). He had shown willingness to withdraw all proceedings. It was pointed out that tenders were invited for other zones for which highest offer of Rs. 16.51 lacs was received. He therefore suggested that if this dispute can be resolved, the Corporation can start earning monthly income of Rs. 16.51 lacs. He, therefore, recommended that all proceedings be resolved. The petitioner may withdraw the petitions and pending suits. The Corporation may drop the blacklisting and return the security deposit to the petitioner so that fresh contract can be awarded. 10. This proposal was considered by the Standing Committee during its meeting dated 27.6.2013 and approved the same. Whatever be the reason, this specific proposal was not acted upon. Further negotiations seem to have taken place between the petitioner and the Corporation. The petitioner there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 of 2012, and 16744 of 2012 pertain to termination of contract. Learned advocate Mr.Maulik G. Nanavati places a photocopy of Page 8 of 17 HC-NIC Page 8 of 17 Created On Tue Mar 29 15:29:50 IST 2016 C/SCA/12263/2015 JUDGMENT communication dated 21.08.2013 received from Sun Communications, Vadodara. The same is taken on record. The learned advocate further states that proposal made by the said communication is acceptable to the respondentMunicipal Corporation provided the petitioner in all these petitions complies with the said proposal. 2. Proprietor of Sun Communications, Mr.Kiranbhai Vasantrav Kadam is personally present before the Court and who assures the Court that Sun Communications will abide by all the provisions of the aforesaid communication dated 21.08.2013, which is under his signature. 3. In view of the fact that the proposal made by the petitioner is accepted by the respondentCorporation, the petitioner does not have any surviving grievance at this stage. In view of that the Special Civil Applications are not pressed. The same are disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated. No order as to cost. 4. Consequently, Civil Applications N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,471/was paid over to the petitioner and towards disputed amount the Corporation has been ordered to be deposited before the registry of this Court a sum of Rs. 25 lacs. 13. Learned counsel Mr.Dipen Desai for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had given offer in writing upon which the petitioner would compromise all the disputes and withdraw all the proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the Corporation. The Corporation had accepted such compromise formula. It now cannot recover any additional charges, either in the guise of service tax or escalation clause. On the other hand, Mr.Maulik Nanavati for the Corporation opposed the petition contending that by accepting the offer the Corporation did not mean to waive the legally recoverable charges. In any case the period of contract for zones No.1 and 2 was over. The petitioner's liability to pay according to such contract has been crystallized. The petitioner has also paid such charges with escalation and service tax. Regarding zones No.3 and 4 also the contract clearly envisages price escalation every year. The petitioner cannot pay the rental charges at the base rate. 14. We must split the consideration of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner was unambiguous. 17. Why did the Corporation agree to such term is not necessary for us to go into. The Corporation itself had considered multiple reasons, such as loss of revenue of Rs. 16.51 lacs every month and multiple pending legal disputes. Quite apart from the Corporation suffering such loss, the petitioner's claim of illegal termination of contract was also pending before the Court. What would have been outcome of such challenge is not possible nor necessary for us to predict. 18. If due to such reasons the Corporation in its conscious decision accepted the petitioner's offer of payment of rent at specified rate in view of which the petitioner would withdraw all the proceedings against the Corporation, the Corporation now cannot apply another formula for computing the unpaid rental charges. 19. This discussion would cover rentals for zones No.3 and 4 only where during the currency of the contract period High Court had granted interim protection and rental charges have remained unpaid. Regarding zones No.1 and 2 we are informed by the counsel for the Corporation that the petitioner had already made payments on rental charges with escalation and service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
