w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Simplex Castings Limited v/s SHW Casting Technologies GMBH & Co. Kg & Others

    TA No. 10 of 2017 & CS No. 123 of 2017 (Original Side)

    Decided On, 23 May 2017

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

    For the Petitioner: Saptangsu Basu, Sr. Advocate, Nirmalya Dasgupta, Debdut Mukherjee, Gaurav Khaitan, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, Padam Kumar Khaitan, Nandini Khaitan, Pratik Shanu, Advocates.



Judgment Text

The Court: Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate appears on behalf of the plaintiff and moves this application for interim relief. He submits, the defendant no.1 is a foreign supplier with the support of whom his client had submitted a tender before the Railways. The requirements of the tender involve the defendant no.1. The tender process commenced and the plaintiff was found to be the lowest bidder. The process continues and the Railways are in negotiation with three bidders being L-1 to L-3. Mr. Basu submits further, his client subsequently came to know that the defendant no.1 had extended the same support to the defendant no.2. This has resulted in a situation where his bid stands to be scuttled. Hence, the prayer for urgent interim relief.

He has referred to authorisation letter dated 23rd March, 2017 by which the defendant no.1 rendered the authorisation to the plaintiff to bid as it did. He then refers to a confirmation letter dated 3rd April, 2017 issued by the said defendant to the defendant no.2 authorising that defendant. The defendant no.1 has also stated that all prior or written communication (email etc.) with other potential Indian companies for this project are void. He submits, the defendant no.1 has not duly revoked its authorisation to his client till date.

Mr. Khaitan, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the defendant no.1 and submits, he received copies of this application last night and instructions are awaited. While seeking an adjournment he refers to a letter dated 10th May, 2017 addressed by his client to the plaintiff in which his client had stated that they had to make the exclusivity void due to the wide differences and obscurities during last month’s negotiati

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

on. The Railways have been served but they have been arraigned as proforma defendants/respondents. Put up this application before the Vacation Bench on 30th May, 2017.
O R