-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 1322 of 2008 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: March 10, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 1322 of 2008 (O&M). The Patiala Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited through its Liquidator and another ... Appellants VERSUS M/s. Goldy Traders through its partners and others ...Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Avinish Mittal, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 1322 of 2008 (O&M). whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for recovery of Rs.50,000/- along with interest from the defendants-appellants was decreed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Plaintiff - M/s. Goldy Traders through its partners (hereinafter referred to as `the plaintiff concern') submitted tender for the purchase of Bagasse in response to the tender notice issued by the Patiala Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, Rakhra (hereinafter referred to as `the Sugar Mill') for supply of certain items and deposited Rs.50,000/- as security vide Receipt No.5775 dated 17.10.2000. The last date for submission of tender was 10.10.2000. The tenders were to be opened at 2 P.M on the same day and the negotiations were to be held on 11.10.2000 at 11 A.M. The Sugar Mill failed to accept the offer given by the plaintiff concern within a reasonable period of two/three days from the date of opening of the tender. Consequently, the plaintiff concern sent a letter dated 14.12.2000 to the Sugar Mill requesting it to refund the security amount of Rs.50,000/- lying deposited with it. This letter of the plaintiff concern had been received in the office of the Sugar Mill on 14.12.2000. Still, the Sugar Mill sent a letter dated 16.12.2000 to the plaintiff concern intimating that the offer of the plaintiff concern had been accepted and it (plaintiff concern) had been allowed to lift surplus Bagasse for the crushing season 2000- -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 1322 of 2008 (O&M). 2001 at the rate of Rs.42/- per quintal plus taxes. Thereafter, another letter dated 20.2.2001 was received by the plaintiff-firm from the Sugar Mill regarding forfeiture of the security amount of Rs.50,000/- due to non-lifting of Bagasse in view of order No.130 dated 16.12.2000 whereby acceptance of the tender of the plaintiff concern by the Sugar Mill was conveyed to it (plaintiff- concern). As noticed above, as per tender notice (Exhibit P.2), the tenders were to be submitted till 10.10.2000, which were to be opened at 2 P.M on the same day. The negotiations were to be held on 11.10.2000 at 11 A.M. There is no evidence on record that any negotiations had taken place on 11.10.2000. The plaintiff concern had deposited Rs.50,000/- as security vide Receipt No.5775 dated 17.10.2000. Since the Sugar Mill did not convey to the plaintiff concern regarding acceptance of its tender within a reasonable time, the plaintiff concern sent letter dated 14.12.2000 (Exhibit P.4) to the Sugar Mill for the refund of the security amount of Rs.50,000/-. The letter dated 14.12.2000 (Exhibit P.4) had been received in the office of the Sugar Mill on the same date 14.12.2000. Strangely enough, the Sugar Mill then sent letter dated 16.12.2000 (Exhibit P.5) to the plaintiff concern conveying to it (plaintiff concern) that its tender had been accepted and it had been allowed to lift surplus Bagasse for the crushing season 2000-2001 at the rate of Rs.42/- per quintal plus taxes. Thereafter, the Sugar Mill sent -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 1322 of 2008 (O&M). letter dated 20.2.2001 to the plaintiff concern regarding forfeiture of the security amount of Rs.50,000/- due to non-lifting of Bagasse in view of letter / order No.130 dated 16.12.2000 (Exhibit P.5). However, in the letter dated 16.12.2000 (Exhibit P.5), there was no condition that the security amount could be forfeited. As noticed above, the plaintiff concern had sent letter dated 14.12.2000 (Exhibit P.4) to the Sugar Mill asking for the refund of the security amount of Rs.50,000/-; thereby withdrawing the offer as the time for tender had already expired. It is apparent from the facts of the case, as discussed above, that after the submission of the tender by the plaintiff concern on 10.10.2000, the same had not been accepted by the Sugar Mill till 16.12.2000. Besides, the Sugar Mill did not lead any evidence on record to show that any loss had been suffered by the Sugar Mill on account of cancellation of tender by the plaintiff concern. It was on account of these facts and the evidence led by the parties that both the Courts below decreed the suit of the plaintiff concern. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the Sugar Mill that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the -5- Regular Second Appeal No. 1322 of 2008 (O&M). present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) March 10, 2011. JUDGE ak