Date: 15-03-2019
Business: Mentioned by pracipe. NOB. TOB.
Adv. Vaibhav Pandya for plaintiff tendered draft NM with affidavit seeking ad-interim relief to direct the defendants to deposit the copies of agreement and supplementary agreement executed with all the six team owners of T-20 Mumbai league and further to restrain the defendant from declaring and organizing the next edition of T-20 league.
Adv. Jubin Dalal for def. no. 1 and Adv. Vikas Warerkar for def. no. 2 are present.
Exh. 1 - Plaint
Exh. 2 - Vakalatnama. O- Seen and filed.
Exh. 3 - Address Memo. O- R and R.
Exh. 4 - List of documents. O - Seen and filed.
Exh. 5 - Affidavit in support of plaint. O- R and R.
Exh. 6 - Vakalatnama of Adv. Jubin Dalal for def. no. 1. O- seen and filed.
Exh. 7 - Vakalatnama of Adv. Warerkar for def. no. 2. O- seen and filed.
Heard. Ld. Adv. Pandya submits that for bidding submission of performance bank guarantee was a condition precedent, however, the plaintiff could not submit the same and therefore, the plaintiff was disqualified. He further submits that none of the parties could furnish the bank guarantee, however, their post dated cheques were accepted by the organizers. Thus, the defendants altered the terms and conditions of the biding without informing the public. Thus, he prays for directing the defendants to submit the copies of agreements and supplementary agreements. The plaintiff has also issued notice to that effect, however, it was not responded by the defendants.
On the other hand, Ld. Adv. for defendant no. 1 submits that the plaintiff has not even entered the bidding process as he did not deposit Rs. 1 lakh for purchasing an invitation to tender. According to him the plaintiff is not a winning bidder and therefore, question of submitting performance bank guarantee would not arise. He further submits that the plaintiff did not purchase the invitation and did not participate in the process and therefore, he is not having locus standi to challenge entire process by making such fishing inquiry. There is no question of disqualifying the plaintiff, as the plaintiff did not participate in either of the processes. He also submits that the agreements are confidential and the same cannot be shared with the plaintiff who is not even the participant or the winning bidder.
On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for def. no. 2 submits that in absence of the six winning bidder their agreements cannot be challenged. According to him plaintiff cannot collect evidence by moving such motion. He submits that the entire pleadings are vague and false.
In reply the Ld. Advocate for plaintiff submits that the question whether the plaintiff participated in the process or not will come afterwards. The plaintiff after getting the copies of agreement will amend the suit and make appropriate prayers etc.
Considering rival submissions, averments made in the plaint and copies of documents placed on record even at the threshold it is undisputed that in response to the tender notice for invitation to bid for T-20 Mumbai League Teams, the plaintiff did not pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for purchasing invitation to bid, therefore, question of its participation in the bidding process by furnishing performance bank guarantee for Rs. 1 Crore would not arise. On the contrary, it appears that the plaintiff without having any right, title or interests is trying to lay fetter in the league seeking fishing inquiry employing court machinery for collection of evidence. The plaintiff, not being participant or winning bidder, has no locus standi to institute suit or take out motion. Thus, both the suit and motion are absolutely misconceived and vexatious, leave to register NM cannot be granted. The plaintiff has not shown that it has a cause of action to institute this suit. The suit is not in representative capacity. Thus, for want of cause of action and locus standi to the plaintiff the suit is required to be dismissed summarily. Thus, the following order is passed -
ORDER
1. The suit is summarily dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. An ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by Sheristedar of this Court be supplied immediately to both the parties.
Nature Of Disposal: DISMISSED
Disposal Date: 15-03-2019