2014 (9) TMI 468

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f India on 30-8-2012. The consequential relief of release of goods has also been sought. 2. It is the say of the petitioner that the bid made by the petitioner had been approved for the lots in question by R-3 subject to final approval of R-2 and the petitioner had already deposited the sum of Rs. 64,50,000/-. 3. The rejection of the bid has occurred without assigning any reasons for the same though the bid had been provisionally approved as far back as on 20-9-2012, the rejection has been made only on 4-2-2013 and the next auction scheduled for 13-2-2013. 4. The counter affidavit has been filed only of R-2. We have perused the contents of the same as also heard submissions of learned counsel for the parties. There are som....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aution Money Deposit (CMD), failed to deposit the requisite Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of 30% after confirmation of the bid in the e-auction. The CMD was thus forfeited but the bid was not offered to the second highest bidder. It has been stated by R-3 that apparently as per the CVC guidelines, re-auction has to take place even in such a situation, an aspect which would require closer scrutiny. In fact, after we noticed this aspect, a different plea is sought to be raised before us that the CVC guidelines prohibit a negotiation with H-2. 6. A third auction was held on 19-7-2012 with a further 10% lower reserve price of Rs. 1,94,40,000/-. R-3 was expected to answer as to why there should have been a 10% lowering of the reserve price w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... be considered as valid. 9. We may note, however, in the facts of the present case the submission is that the H-2 M/s. ARS Impex had withdrawn its EMD and made a complaint only qua the fourth bid on account of the process which had been carried out on the second bid. 10. The counter affidavit of R-2 also notices the nature of complaint made by M/s. ARS Impex. The complaint emanated from clause 11(xiii) of the terms and conditions of the auction held on 30-4-2012 which provided that if the highest bidder fails to take the delivery within the stipulated time, after submission of the EMD, the goods should be delivered to the next highest bidder. This clause would not apply for the reason that in the present case, the EMD itself was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds had to be bid for. No doubt, this can create an element of confusion as in the bold letters it is mentioned as 'TEXTILE GOODS' while in the small print a description is given of the electrical goods under the heading 'Commodity as per physical examination'. 15. We call upon R-3 to stop this practice which is capable of causing deception to the prospective purchaser who is only interested in knowing what the goods are which are sought to be auctioned. 16. The last aspect which we need to note is that as per R-2 it has only an advisory role for R-3. This position is not disputed by R-3 though it has rejected the bid of the petitioner ostensibly on the ground that it has not received the approval of R-2. It is the say of R-3 tha....