2016 (4) TMI 1389

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... MR.D.C.DAVE, MR JIGAR M PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside the notice inviting tenders issued by respondent No.1 Indian Oil Corporation for completing the resid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ued. 3. Admitted facts therefore, are that the petitioner has no privity of contract with either respondent No.2 or IOC, the principal assigner of the contract. In fact, counsel for the IOC has stated that whatever outsourcing agreements executed were without the permission of IOC. Be that as it may, under no condition the petitioner can claim any relief against IOC, particularly in facts of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ernment had supplied unused steel to a company for manufacturing purpose which was delivered to another company under Government's direction. It was held that such delivery being lawful and the Government having full and direct benefit thereof; in terms of Section 70 of the Contract Act, delivering company would be entitled to payment for the delivered steel from the Government. In case of Sta....