LI Network
Published on: October 8, 2023 at 13:58 IST
The Karnataka High Court has issued a directive stating that premises already allocated to third parties should not be disrupted. The court has further ordered that proceedings in the matter should be concluded by passing an award within a period of three months.
The case involved a writ petition seeking to quash an e-tender notification and requesting the respondents to consider the representations made.
A Single Bench presided over by Justice Krishna S. Dixit stated, “The premises that are already allotted to third parties pursuant to the impugned e-Tender Notification shall not be disturbed by the Petitioner. The premises that are not leased out shall be handed over to the Petitioner immediately after depositing one year’s advance rent/license fee at the enhanced rate under the existing arrangement with the second Respondent.”
In this case, the petitioner, claiming to be an ongoing contractor, challenged the e-tender notification issued by the Divisional Controller, KSRTC (Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation), which called for e-Tender applications for commercial complexes in the KSRTC bus stand at Hassan.
The senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the tender in question should be invalidated due to force majeure, specifically the COVID-19 pandemic. They claimed that two Central Government Notifications had effectively extended the twelve-year contract period, and that the respondents had failed to fulfill certain contractual obligations.
The High Court, after considering the arguments of both parties, noted that the e-tender notification should not be implemented until the conclusion of the ongoing arbitration proceedings.
“The said proceedings shall be completed by issuing an award, preferably within a three-month period. All contentions of the parties are kept open, and nothing stated herein shall impact the arbitration proceedings,” ordered the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court partially granted the petition.
Case Title: H.N. Pruthivinarayan v. The Managing Director & Anr.
