LexM/S. B.S.N. JOSHI & SONS LTD. versus AJOY MEHTA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2008] 17 S.C.R. 1352 MIS. B.S.N. JOSHI & SONS LTD. v. AJOY MEHTA & ANR. Contempt Petition No. 245 of 2007 IN Civil Appeal No, 4613 of 2006 I , DECEMBER 19, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] / c Contempt of Court - Disputes arising out of contract for transportation of coal - Judgment passed by Supreme Court - Contempt petition filed alleging willful disobedience of the judgment- Held: Alleged contemnors.did not read directions of the Court in their proper perspective - It was not a case D where two interpretations of the judgment were possible - Apology tendereq by the alleged contemnors accepted - Direction passed in favour of the Petitioner. Respondent No.1 is Managing Director of Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. (MAHAGENCO), a public sector undertaking. E MAHAGENCO issued notice inviting tender for transpor: tation of coal. The bid of Petitioner was not accepted on the premise that it did not fulfill the essential condition of having transported the prescribed minimum quantity of F coal for the preceding five years. The matter came upto this Court, which vide judgment dated 31-10-2006 directed that a fresh look be given in rega-rd to the eligibility of the Petitioner for purpose of the contract and if it satisfied the tender conditions, the contract be awarded in its favour for a G period of one year. H On the allegation that respondents willfully disobeyed the said judgment passed by this Court, contempt proceedings were initiated' against them. It was contended that the respondents gave a twist to the said 1352 M/S. B.S.N. JOSHI & SONS LTD. v. AJOY MEHTA & 1353 ANR. judgment of this Court insofar as it proceeded on the A basis that the five years period should be calculated from / the date of the judgment and refused to grant contract in. favour of the petitioner relying on an interim order passed by Court and further sought to take into consideration an irrelevant subsequent event. B On the aforementioned premise, it was contended that the respondents must be held to have committed gross contempt of this Court. Disposing of the petition, the Court HELD:1.1. Supply of coal and that too good quality c of coal is essential for running of a thermal power station. It was with that intent in mind that this Court, either at the interim stage or final stage, did not intend to pass any order which would hamper transportation of coal resulting in stoppage of the functioning of the thermal :D power station. The respondents misconstrued the order · of this Court for which there was no basis that they were bound by the interim order passed by this Court. [Paras 8 and 9] [1360-D-E] 1.2. One fails to understand as to how a fresh tender E was floated to allot the work of liaisoning of coal and the same companies who had formed a cartel were allowed to carry on the contract job. [Para 10] [1361-8-C] 1.3. The petitioner was asked to file additional documents in support of its contention that it fulfilled the F essential conditions of contract, if it so intended to do. It .... was, however, wholly unnecessary as only a fresh look was required to be given in regard to the eligibility of the i petition for the purpose of awarding the contract wherefor the Scrutiny Committee was required to form an opinio'n as to whether the petitioner had substantially G complied with the tender conditions, subject, of course, , -4 If to the fulfillment of essential conditions. [Para 11] [1361 D- E] 2. The respondents committed a serious error in ' H 1354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 17 S.C.R. A calculating the quantity of coal transported for preceding five financial years from the date of the judgment. The date of the judgment was not at all relevant for the ' aforementioned purpose. The respondents did not explain how they understood the order of this Court B wrongly as they had also proceeded on the basis that the five financial years should be counted from the date of calling for the tender and the date of the judgment separately. If they had any difficulty in understanding the direction of the court, they should have approached this Court for clarification but could not have arrived at such c an absurd conclusion that what was necessary to be considered is handling of coal by the petitioner tor the preceding five years from the date of passing of the ;; judgment by this Court. What was necessary for them to ,..
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.