Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: Page-1
Daily Status
IN THE COURT OF :COURT 1 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
Case No. :SUIT/0100650/2019
M/s. Seven Hills Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s. Probability Sports India Pvt. Ltd.
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
-- 1 of 2 --
Page-2
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
-- 2 of 2 --