SURAJ BESAN AND RICE MILLS Vs. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has filed the present suit thereby claiming a decree of declaration to the effect that there is no legal, valid and binding contract for the sale and purchase of 6200 M.Ts. of damaged paddy as per acceptance telegram dated July 22, 1983 and that this does not bring about a valid, legal and binding contract.

(2.) . Briefly, the facts are that plaintiff firm is registered with defendant vide Registration No. 25/82 dated January 27, 1982. It is alleged that under this registration, the annual requirement of the plaintiff has been assessed at 15,000 quintals (1500 M.Ts.). As such plaintiff can quote only for this registered quantity. Regional Office of defendant at Chandigarh invited tenders for the purchase and removal of damaged foodgrains declared fit for cattle/poultry feed etc. Plaintiff submitted their tenders through Sh. Niranjan Lal in the prescribed form. the tender submitted by plaintiff, was not signed by all the partners of plaintiff firm. Tenders were submitted and opened on <PG>177</PG> Jane 29, 1983. It is alleged that tender of plaintiff was neither valid nor the same could be deemed as valid for acceptance beyond the annual assessed capacity of 1500 M.Ts of stocks. Plaintiff vide letter dated July 8, 1983 informed defendant that the offer was for 1500 M.Ts of stocks and not over and above specific quantity. This, according to plaintiff, amounted to amended offer which was received by defendant Corporation on July 11, 1983. However, the tender of plaintiff was accepted and an acceptance telegram was issued by defendant on July 22, 1983 which was received by plaintiff on July 24, 1983. It is alleged in the plaint that plaintiff's offer was only for 1500 M.Ts of stocks of damaged paddy but to the surprise of plaintiff, telegram dated July 22, 1983, placed an order for stock of about 6200 M.Ts of damaged paddy for purchase. According to plaintiff, the aforesaid acceptance did not bring about a valid, legal and binding contract between the parties to purchase 6200 M.Ts of stock. In any event, it is alleged that aforesaid acceptance was a counter offer as it did not conform to the offer of the plaintiff to the extent of 1500 M.Ts. As there was no binding contract between the parties, plaintiff did not furnish the security deposit amount. There was a threat on behalf of the defendant for sellidg the stocks of 6200 fM.Ts of damaged paddy at the risk and cost of plaintiff and to take steps for the cancellation of the certificate and various benefits and privileges which plaintiff has been, enjoying.

(3.) . Defendant has filed the written statement thereby controverting the allegations made by plaintiff. Defendant has alleged that the annual requirement was no doubt assessed at 1500 M.Ts, but defendant denied that plaintiff could only quote for 1500 M.Ts Plaintiff firm through its partner Sh. Om Parkash authorised Sh. Niranjan Lal vide letter dated June 23, 1983 to sign.. and attend the tender floated by the defendant and in that authority letter the partner of the plaintiff firm undertook that the firm would be responsible for all the acts and deeds done by Sh. Niranjan Lal with regard to the tender in question. Plaintiff firm voluntarily had quoted for 13,5.884 M.Ts of damaged foodgrains. It is an after thought on the part of the plaintiff firm to back out their own offer under the garb of 1500 M.Ts when plaintiff firm realised that it might not be economically viable for plaintiff to lift the quoted quantity of damaged foodgrains. Defendant has alleged that tender submitted by plaintiff was valid. Plaintiff was issued acceptance telegram on July 22, 1983 for 6,176.790 M.Ts quantity of foodgrains. Any modification to the original offer made by plaintiff has no relevance and same is not binding on defendant. Plaintiff is prohibited to amend or modify the offer in terms of tender notice dated June 28,1983. According to defendant. Clause 5 of tender notice prohibits any amendment to the original offer by the plaintiff. It is alleged that offer of the plaintiff was open for two months i.e. upto August 29, 1983. As such, there came into existence legal, valid and binding agreement between the parties.