KAILASH AND COMPANY vs DIRECTOR OF SUPPLIES AND DISPOSALS

THE matter was passed over once and called for the second time. THEre is no appearance on behalf of the complainant.

THE complainant has filed a complaint in respect of the tender bearing No. A/T.No/101/0011/30.3.84/C-60/008/RP/COAD/025 dated 31.10/8.11.85. THE following pleas incorporated in Clauses 2 to 14 are stated in the communication dated 30th April, 2002 to this Commission referred to as below : "(2) That the security amount was reduced to Rs. 9,781/- vide their letter dated 14.8.1986 (A copy of the letter is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure No. 2). (3) That the reduced security amount of Rs. 9,781/- was deposited by us vide our letter dated 15.1.1987 in the form of F.D.R. (A copy of our letter is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure No. 3). (4) That the required 3 Nos. of the store as "Advance Samples" were submitted by us within the time vide our letter dated 4.10.1986 and the same were reported acceptable by the inspection authority vide letter dated 6.12.1986 (A copy of both the letters is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure Nos. 4 and 5). (5) That the F.D.R. pertaining to security has been kept with the cashier vide their letter dated 7.4.1988 (A copy of the letter is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure No. 6). (6) That the A/T was cancelled vide their letter dated 23.11.1987 (A copy of the letter is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure No. 7). (7) That the A/T was reinstated vide their letter dated 29.12.1987 (A copy of the letter is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure No. 8). (8) That we submitted the main basic material "Ply Wood" and Canvas for test report vide our letter dated 31.8.1988 which has not been tested and reported (A copy of the letter is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure No. 9). (9) That in the absence of the test report on basic material submitted by us the contract has become infatuous. (10) That we vide our letter dated 2.4.1990 approached with the request to kindly refund the security amount (A copy of the letter is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure No. 10) (11) That in the absence of any reply we sent them two reminders vide our regd. letters dated 11.1.1992 and 17.5.1993 (A copy of the letters is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure Nos. 11 and 12 respectively). (12) That there being no action by them on 27.5.1998 was sent a Fax requesting them to refund the security amount on humanitarian ground but it also failed to make any effect on their attitude. (13) That thereafter the undersigned had a telephonic talk with the Dy. Director Shri N.K. Modi and requested him for an immediate action in the matter who in reply in rough tone and full of anger said that after sleeping for so many years you have awaken and you want us to do a thing which is not possible, now nothing can be done, forget it and you will get a reply shortly and covering the departmental irregularity and the mischief being done to us and blaming us for the circumstantial situation he just put down the receiver saying you will get a reply shortly but the same has not been sent to us till date. (14) That our security amount deposited in the form of FDR is held up for last 15 years which has now become almost Rs. 40,000/- or above."

The respondent has filed reply. Mr. M.K. Bajaj and Mr. S.K. Malik, Assistant Directors of the respondent are present in person. They state that the present complaint does not fall within the purview of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The contract itself provides resolutions of dispute through Arbitration, which is part of condition of the contract. It is contended that the petitioner was at liberty to take recourse to a remedy of Arbitration as per contract condition for resolving the dispute. It is also submitted that the claim is time-barred and the application before this Forum is filed to circumvent the process by referring stale claim.

We find force in the contention of the respondent as taken in the reply affidavit and do not find any ground to grant any relief to the complainant in the present proceedings. The same are dismissed though liberty is granted to the complainant to take recourse to any other remedy in an appropriate Forum as permissible in law. Complaint dismissed.