The petition filed under under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable if the same relief is prayed in Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Case filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petition was filed by the M/s Frick India Limited to restrain Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) from terminating the contract awarded to the company and from forfeiting the Performance and Additional Performance Bank Guarantees and to stay the implementation of letter dated August 10, 2024 to the extent it relates to debarment of the company from participating in any further tender for next five years in connection. The company was blacklisted by BIADA for five years and respondent was debarred from future tender process.
In Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) & Ors. vs. M/s Frick India Limited (2025), Patna High Court's Justice Arun Kumar Jha passed an order dated May 16, 2025, wherein, it recorded that the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had challenged the order dated April 22, 2025 passed by Principal District Judge, Patna in Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Case No. 65 of 2024, whereby and whereunder the Principal District Judge allowed the respondent to participate in e-retender. The respondent was blacklisted by the petitioners for five years and respondent is debarred from future tender process. counsel further submits that the respondent has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The other petitioners were: Chairman, BIADA and DGM (Technical), BIADA.
On April 30, 2026, Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhete passed an order in M/s Frick India Limited vs. Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) & Ors. (2026), which reads:"The present Special Leave Petition has rendered infructuous and is dismissed as having become infructuous."
No comments:
Post a Comment