Case: Sri Krishna Kumar Singhania Vs. Messrs Lala Shyamlal Jain Ship Breaking Company Limited and Others

2. The case relates to sale of Turbine and boilers with their accessories and fittings installed at Gauripur Thermal Power Station within 24 Parganas (North). The tender notice was issued by the Board inviting offers from intending purchasers accordingly several tenders were filed. Subsequently there was a modification in the terms of the tender and the appellant was informed by a letter from the Board that a sum of over Rs. 3, 04, 00, 000/had been offered by the respondent No. 7 and if the appellant was interested in purchasing the aforesaid equipments at a higher consideration than Rs. 3, 05, 00,he should do so along with 10% of the amount as earnest money. The case of the appellant is that he did not intend to bid so high and he, therefore, gave up his attempt to compete with the respondent No. 7. The matter, however, did not rest there. The present respondent No. I filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court with certain prayers the details whereof are not necessary to set out. When the case was taken up the parties interested in the matter were invited to make fresh offers and ultimately onthe respondent No. 1 came out to be the highest bidder offering a price ofRs.2, 11, 11,an order in his favour was passed by the learned trial Judge. According to the ease of the appellant he got information of the case and the order onand made a prayer before the learned trial Judge for passing an order of stay giving the appellant an opportunity to make a further bid. The appellant was allowed to file a written application which was done containing a prayer for setting aside the order datedAttempts were made for getting the matter heard expeditiously, but the appellant could not succeed. After waiting for about a week the appellant attempted to get the order set aside in appeal. Ultimately this special leave petition was filed in this Court on

Reasoning:
e learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has further said that in that event the respondent No. I must be allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs.2, l l, l l, l l l/already paid by him. Similarly Mr. Sanghi prays for a direction to the High Court to permit partial withdrawal of his deposit if he is held to be entitled to compensation on account ofof any portion of the articles in question which have been removed by respondent No. 1.