Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, G.R. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and its director, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking directions to the respondent, ONGC Ltd., to accept 4 x 75 MT Cranes offered by the petitioners as an alternative to the originally contracted cranes, and to extend the time for deployment of other cranes beyond 13th August 2017. The petitioners also sought an injunction against encashment of a bank guarantee dated 01.06.2017 furnished by them. The petitioners had successfully bid for a tender for supply of specific cranes, including SANY SCC 1000E – 100 MT Crawler Crane, CKL 1000i – 100 MT Crawler Crane, and SANY SCC750E – 75 MTS Crawler Crane (2 Nos.). The contract was awarded on 15.05.2017. There was delay in supplying the cranes, and inspection had not commenced. The petitioners apprehended that the respondent might invoke the bank guarantee. The court noted that the parties were bound by the tender conditions and the procedure for submitting documents and inspections. The petitioners were under an obligation to provide the specific products/cranes offered based on the advertisement and within the prescribed time. The court held that there is no question of further modification of the order after the contract was awarded. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioners' claims. The court also refused to grant any injunction against encashment of the bank guarantee, as there was no fraud or special equity established. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Tender Conditions - Binding Nature - Specific Performance - The petitioners, as successful bidders, were bound by the tender conditions requiring supply of specific cranes. The court held that there is no question of modification of the order after the contract was awarded, and the petitioners cannot compel acceptance of alternative cranes. (Paras 2-3) B) Bank Guarantee - Injunction - Encashment - No Fraud or Special Equity - The court held that an injunction against encashment of bank guarantee cannot be granted in the absence of fraud or special equity. The petitioners' apprehension of encashment was not sufficient to restrain the respondent from invoking the bank guarantee. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction to accept alternative cranes and to restrain encashment of bank guarantee in a tender contract.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Tender conditions binding
- No modification of contract after award
- No injunction against bank guarantee encashment without fraud or special equity
- Writ petition not maintainable for contractual disputes
