Basant Kumar and ors. Vs. Mohan Kumar and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[altamas kabir ; cyriac joseph, jj.] - constitution of india - articles 32 - remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this part -- in case of consortium, the partner developing the software application should have cmm level 3 certification and the bidder/lead partners of the consortium (in case of consortium, should have an active (valid at least till june, 2010) iso 9001:2000 certification at the time of submission of the bid. the documents to be submitted along with the bid remained the same. the criteria relating to the documents to be submitted as qualifying documents included a copy of the quality certificate/documentation of quality policy. the documents to be submitted along with the bid remained unchanged. mr. salve submitted that the said condition was duly satisfied by the appellant who had such a valid and active iso 9001:2000 certification when the bid documents were filed. mr. salve once again reiterated that despite having such a valid certificate, through inadvertence the previous year's certificate had been enclosed with the bid documents. mr. salve urged that in view of clause 9 of section 7.1.1, the appellant's bid documents had been wrongly rejected at the technical bid stage, without even considering the financial bid which had been submitted by it. mr. salve submitted that all those documents to be submitted as qualifying documents, included the quality certificate and iso 9001:2000 certificate, and if the said condition is read with the conditions contained in clause 9 of section 7.1.1 of the rfp, it would be seen that the requirement of a valid iso 9001:2000 certification on the date of submission of the bid documents was duly satisfied in the appellant's case. mr. salve urged that the bid documents submitted by the appellant fully satisfy the aforesaid tests and the rejection of the appellant's bid was unlawful and cannot be sustained. qualify certification - the company/one of the partners of consortium (in case of consortium) should have an active iso 9001:2000 certification at the time of submission of the bid. the aforesaid paragraph indicates that a copy of the quality certificate/document of quality policy would have to be submitted along with the bid documents, with the relaxation that in case the quality certificate was due for renewal, the bidder should ensure that the renewed certificate was made available at the time of signing of the contract. "8. bidder should have active iso 9001:2000 certification at the time of submission of bids. the bidder/lead partners of consortium (in case of consortium) should have an active (valid at least till june 2010) iso 9001:2000 certification at the time of submission of the bid. the above provision obliges a tenderer to produce along with the bid document a copy of the quality certificate which is valid and active on the date of submission of the bid and it does not enable a bidder to withhold the copy of such quality certificate. the appellant claimed to have a valid and active iso 9001:2000 certificate at the time of submission of the bid, but did not produce a copy of the said certificate along with the bid document.1. this appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs in a suit for partition and is directed against order dated 10th february, 2011 passed by a learned single judge of this court by which his lordship modified the ad interim order of injunction earlier granted by another learned single judge with direction upon the defendants to file affidavits-in-opposition to the main application for injunction and fixed the matter as adjourned motion in the monthly list of march, 2011. 2. being dissatisfied, the plaintiffs have come up with the present appeal. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that initially, immediately after filing of the suit, the learned judge of this court granted an ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs possession in the suit property situated on garcha first lane, and also restrained the defendants from transferring, alienating or encumbering the said property in any way. 3. subsequently, on the returnable date, when the defendants appeared, the learned single judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties modified the interim order to the extent that first part of the earlier ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing plaintiffs possession in the said property was maintained but the other part of the ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating and/or encumbering the said property was vacated. being dissatisfied, the plaintiffs have come up with the present appeal. 4. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the fact that the learned single judge passed direction for filing affidavits-in-opposition and that the defendants have already filed such affidavits-in-opposition, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal at this stage as the main application for injunction is yet to be heard on merit. 5. it is now a settled law that while disposing of an appeal against grant of ad interim order of injunction, an appeal court generally does not interfere unless the order passed by the learned trial judge is found to be clearly wrong. in the case before us, we find that the learned single judge has, by a detailed order, discussed the well-settled principles of grant of ad interim order of injunction and after complying with such principles, in the facts of the present case, modified the ad interim order of injunction. 6. we do not find any reason to interfere with the said order passed by the learned single judge. it is needless to mention that at this stage, we have restricted our scrutiny to the materials which were already on record before the learned single judge and we have not taken into consideration even the defense disclosed by the defendants in their affidavits-in-opposition and thus, the learned single judge will be free to dispose of the application for injunction on merit without being influenced by the fact that we have not interfered with the ad interim order of injunction earlier granted. 7. the appeal is, thus, disposed of with the aforesaid observations. in view of the disposal of the appeal itself, the connected application has become in fructuous and the same is disposed of accordingly. urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

Judgment:
1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs in a suit for partition and is directed against order dated 10th February, 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship modified the ad interim order of injunction earlier granted by another learned Single Judge with direction upon the defendants to file affidavits-in-opposition to the main application for injunction and fixed the matter as Adjourned Motion in the monthly list of March, 2011.

2. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiffs have come up with the present appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that initially, immediately after filing of the suit, the learned Judge of this Court granted an ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs possession in the suit property situated on Garcha First Lane, and also restrained the defendants from transferring, alienating or encumbering the said property in any way.

3. Subsequently, on the returnable date, when the defendants appeared, the learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties modified the interim order to the extent that first part of the earlier ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing plaintiffs possession in the said property was maintained but the other part of the ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating and/or encumbering the said property was vacated. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiffs have come up with the present appeal.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the fact that the learned Single Judge passed direction for filing affidavits-in-opposition and that the defendants have already filed such affidavits-in-opposition, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal at this stage as the main application for injunction is yet to be heard on merit.

5. It is now a settled law that while disposing of an appeal against grant of ad interim order of injunction, an Appeal Court generally does not interfere unless the order passed by the learned Trial Judge is found to be clearly wrong. In the case before us, we find that the learned Single Judge has, by a detailed order, discussed the well-settled principles of grant of ad interim order of injunction and after complying with such principles, in the facts of the present case, modified the ad interim order of injunction.

6. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is needless to mention that at this stage, we have restricted our scrutiny to the materials which were already on record before the learned Single Judge and we have not taken into consideration even the defense disclosed by the defendants in their affidavits-in-opposition and thus, the learned Single Judge will be free to dispose of the application for injunction on merit without being influenced by the fact that we have not interfered with the ad interim order of injunction earlier granted.

7. The appeal is, thus, disposed of with the aforesaid observations. In view of the disposal of the appeal itself, the connected application has become in fructuous and the same is disposed of accordingly. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.