TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 06/2019 dated 17.07.2019. Brief facts of the case: 2. It is a case where the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short "MCD") invited bids for upgradation of the street lighting in Delhi with preparation for Common Wealth Games 2010. The Chief Secretary, National Capital Territory of Delhi vide letter dated 29.11.2006 requested the Commissioner MCD to prepare action plan for upgradation of street lighting in Delhi. The Commissioner, MCD prepared the action plan and after that NIT were called on 14.09.2007. In response to the NIT, appellant company and many others submitted their bids. 3. The bid was opened on 14.05.2008 by the Tender Opening Committee where appellant company was found to be L-1 in the tender and accordingly on 01.07.200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ackground aforesaid, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the property worth of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- could have been attached. However, in the present matter, property has been attached beyond the alleged pecuniary loss. 8. It is, further, submitted that initially the amount of loss was quantified to a sum of Rs. 3.62 Crores with undue advantage to the appellant. The overwriting in the tenders was found. The documents were manipulated to the advantage of the appellant and accordingly on registration of FIR, a charge- sheet was filed on 28.07.2011 though alleged loss was quantified to a sum of Rs. 1,42,83,000/- which said to have been quantified by the CBI Court at a sum of Rs. 1,15,00,000/-. The respondent had no authority to atta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount of Rs. 3.6 crores has already been withheld by the MCD towards the claim made by the appellant company. In view of the withholding of an amount of Rs. 3.6 crores, there remains no justification to further attach the property of Rs. 1,42,83,000/-. 13. It is submitted that the respondent in fact withheld payment to the tune of Rs. 3.6 crores which was initially assessed to be proceeds of crime. The said amount was later on withheld even by the authority acting on behalf of the Electricity Board and withheld amount is lying with the respondent. 14. It is, further, submitted that an amount of Rs. 2,46,16,149/- is lying with the MCD towards the security deposit. Thus, the aforesaid amount could have been withheld by the respondent inste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Special Judge, CBI on record to quantify the pecuniary loss only of Rs. 1,15,00,000. In the absence of copy of the order, mere pleadings of the appellant would not serve the purpose. In fact, the charge-sheet quantified the amount of proceed for Rs. 1,42,83,000/- and accordingly attachment of the properties to the equivalent value has been made which could not have been for a sum of Rs. 1,15,00,000/-. Thus, first ground pressed is not made out. 17. It is, further, submitted that the amount equivalent to allege proceed of crime i.e. Rs. 1,42,83,000/- as in the custody of the Special Court because the Special Court has released the major part of the amount leaving the amount lying with the respondent. I find that the Adjudicating Authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e High Court of Delhi is quoted as under: "1. One of the contentions raised is that the underlying contract between the parties was induced by fraud. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the second proviso to Section 36 of the A & C Act as well as that a criminal case was registered by CBI wherein the trial court while convicting the Directors of the respondent observed that MCD suffered loss on account of cutting and overwriting in the tender. 2. Mr. Poddar, learned Senior Counsel, on instructions state that the challenge is restricted only with respect to grant of claim No.1 & 8 as well as dismissal of Counter-claim no. 2. 3. Mr. Gaurav Sarin, learned counsel for the respondent refutes the submis....