Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 15th November, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in G.A No. 16 of 2013 filed in a suit being C.S. No. 417 of 2012.
(2.) By the impugned order the plaintiff/appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1 crore with the RDSO before the plaintiff can supply any further goods of its manufacture to any unit of the railways, whether under any existing contract or otherwise. In other words, prior to such deposit of Rs.1 crore being made by the plaintiff with the RDSO, no nut or bolt of the plaintiff's manufacture should reach any railway yard or store or unit in any manner whatsoever. Upon such deposit being made, the plaintiff may resume its supplies to the railways, save as prohibited by the advice of December 5, 2012 issued by RDSO in the impugned letter. The plaintiff will not be entitled to supply any metal liners or have any manufactured metal liners inspected by any inspecting agency before the quality of the plaintiff's metal liners is certified to be as per the IRS specifications by RDSO and before the results on the second set of samples conducted by RDSO are released. The consequence of the failure of the second set of samples to meet the required specifications will be in accordance with the vendor guidelines in force at the time that the samples were drawn. If the deposit in terms of this order is made by the plaintiff to RDSO, the same will be invested in such manner as RDSO may deem proper. If, for a period of five years from the date of such deposit, there is any complaint against the plaintiff in respect of any goods supplied to the railways not adhearing to the specifications and such complaint is upheld, the money will stand forfeited. However, if the plaintiff is entitled to the refund upon there being no such complaint or such complaint not being found to be justified, RDSO will return the sum of Rs.1 crore together after five years of the deposit being made with interest at the simple rate of 4 per cent per annum, irrespective of whatever interest RDSO may have earned on such deposit.
(3.) G.A No. 16 of 2013 (which is what the petition was ultimately numbered as, since it was moved with a tender number on December 20, 2012) is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.5 lakh to be paid by the plaintiff to RDSO immediately. The prohibition contained in the RDSO letter of December 5, 2012 revives and will remain in force, as aforesaid, unless the plaintiff is entitled to have it vacated in accordance with law and as per the provisions of the vendor guidelines effective in 2012. The said impugned order was passed in a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the defendant/respondent herein.;