WLDoc 17-8-14 3 - 30 (PM)

14/08/2017 Delivery | Westlaw India
Westlaw India Delivery Summary
Request made by : IP USER NOVUS

Request made on: Monday, 14 August, 2017 at 15:30 IST
Client ID: inbharati-1

Content Type: Westlaw India
Search : (cyber AND crime)
Delivery selection: Selected Documents
Number of documents delivered: 6
Document(s) e-mailed to: aadikushwaha7@gmail.com
© 2017 Thomson Reuters South Asia Private Limited

14/08/2017 Delivery | Westlaw India Page 2
Jalaluddin v State of Uttar Pradesh

Allahabad High Court
24 July 2017
Case Analysis
Bench Bharat Bhushan, Shailendra Kumar Agrawal
Where Reported 2017 Indlaw ALL 340
Case Digest Subject: Criminal; Practice & Procedure

Keywords: Uttar Pradesh, Passport, Believe, Secret,
Imprisonment For Life, Foreigners Act, 1946, Official Secrets Act,
1923, Rigorous Imprisonment, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973
All Cases Cited Referred

O. M. Cherian @ Thankachan v State of Kerala and others2014
Indlaw SC 766, (2015) 2 SCC 501, AIR 2015 SC 303, 2015 CRLJ
593, JT 2014 (13) SC 34, 2014 (4) KLT 678, 2014 (5) Law Herald
(P&H) 4673, 2014 (4) MLJ(Crl) 622, 2014 (4) RCR(Criminal) 922,
2015 (2) RLW 1644, 2014(12) SCALE 636, [2014] 11 S.C.R. 140
Legislation Cited Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 31(1)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 31
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 313
Foreigners Act, 1946
Foreigners Act, 1946 s. 14
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 415
Official Secrets Act, 1923
Official Secrets Act, 1923 s. 3(2)
Official Secrets Act, 1923 s. 3
This database contains editorial enhancements that are not a part of the original material. The database may also have mistakes or omissions. Users are requested to verify the contents with the
relevant original text(s) such as, the certified copy of the judgment, Government Gazettes, etc. Thomson Reuters bears no liability whatsoever for the adequacy, accuracy, satisfactory quality or
suitability of the content.
Allahabad High Court
24 July 2017
Jalaluddin
State of Uttar Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Appeal No. 6116 of 2003

Bench : Bharat Bhushan, Shailendra Kumar Agrawal
Citation : 2017 Indlaw ALL 340
The Judgment was delivered by : Bharat Bhushan, J.
1. Appellant Jalaluddin is admittedly resident of Bilal Nagar Colony, Police Station (PS)
-Garibabad, Sindh, District Thattar, Pakistan. He has been convicted under Section 3 of the
Official Secret Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred as Official Secret Act), Section 14 of the
Foreigners Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred as the Foreigners Act) and Sections 468, 471 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as IPC) by the impugned judgment and order
dated 17.11.2003 passed by Addl. Sessions Jude, Fast Track Court No. 4, Varanasi in Sessions
Trial No. 474 of 2002 arising out of Case Crime No. 446 of 2001, P.S. Cantt, District Varanasi.
2. The appellant was sentenced to 14 years rigorous imprisonment under section 3 of the
Official Secret Act, 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- with default
stipulation under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of
Rs. 3000/- with default stipulation under Section 468 IPC and finally 7 years rigorous
imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 3000/- with default stipulation under Section 471 IPC. All
the sentences were directed to run consecutively. In essence, appellant has to suffer total 33
years of rigorous imprisonment along with various fines with default stipulations.
3. Prosecution has alleged that appellant was arrested on 3.10.2001 at about 4.10 p.m. by
Station House Officer (SHO) P.S. Cantt Sri D.P. Shukla (informant/P.W-2) along with his
companions at Unique Cyber World located near the police line crossing within P.S. Cantt,
District Varanasi on the information furnished by informant while he was transmitting several
documents of strategic importance to the safety and security of the Nation to the Pakistan.
Recovered articles indicated that appellant had been visiting Fort Williams, Barrackpur of
Eastern Command Unit and Assam Rifles, etc. He had transmitted locational information's,
maps and other information with a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interest of the Nation.
Indian Passport No. B-3062545 valid up to 7.12.2010 in the name of one Juber Khan son of
Liyakat Khan resident of A-515 Camp II, J. J. Colony, Nangloi, Delhi was also recovered upon
which a Visa of Pakistan was visible at page no. 5.
4. The appellant was also taken to resident of Ali Abbas in Village Devchandrapur, P.S.
Saidpur, District Ghazipur on 5.10.2001 where he was residing. From this residence, normal
clothes, some cash and an affidavit in the name of Juber Khan, and ration card etc were also
recovered.
5. The police also found that in the Indian Passport issued in the name of Juber Khan, the
photograph of appellant had been substituted. Submission is that the appellant was using this
Indian Passport by partially forging this Indian Passport. He used to travel at various places
within India in the name of Juber Khan. It is also alleged that he was receiving instructions
from one Major Akbar of Pakistani Secret Agency, (I.S.I). Informant D. P. Shukla lodged the
First Information Report (FIR) Ex-Ka-4 at P.S. Cantt on 3.10.2001 at 18.15 p.m. Fard Ex-Ka-1
of recovered articles was prepared on 3.10.2001. Subsequently another Fard Ex-Ka-2 was
prepared after recovery of incriminating articles from Village Devchandrapur, P.S. Saidpur,
District Ghazipur on 5.10.2001. Sanction of Home Ministry to prosecute the appellant is
available on record as Ex-Ka-19.
6. The matter was investigated and a criminal case was initiated. The then Addl. Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Varanasi charged the appellants under Section 3 of the Official
Secret Act, under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, under Section 468 IPC and Section 471
IPC.
7. Prosecution has adduced as many as eight witnesses in support of its allegations namely
P.W.-1 S. I. Shesh Dhar Pandey (arresting witness), P.W.-2 S.H.O. Devi Prasad Shukla
(informant), P.W.-3 Squadern Leader S. N.G. Hussain Khan of Indian Air-force, P.W.-4
Constable Prasiddhan Ram, P.W.-5 Colonel G. S. Jairam of General Staff Intelligence, Central
Command, P.W.-6 S.I. Diwakar Singh (first Investigating Officer), P.W.-7 Inspector Jaiprakash
Singh (Subsequent Investigating Officer) and P.W-8 Cosntable Shami Yadav.
8. Statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has denied all
allegations and claimed false implication. He has also denied ever possessing Passport of Juber
Khan. His argument is that he came on his own Passport on 9.7.2001 to India and that he was
arrested from Village Devchandrapur on 26.9.2001 and subsequently shown to have been
arrested on 3.10.2001. Accused also summoned one witness from Passport Office R. K. Puram,
New Delhi and produced him as D.W.-1 Rukum Singh Rawat who has testified that the
Passport allegedly recovered from appellant was issued in favour of one Juber Khan of Delhi,
however, photograph affixed on this Passport does not match with the photograph of owner of
Passport available on application form.
9. On conclusion of the trial, learned Sessions judge convicted appellant Jalaluddin as aforesaid
by the impugned judgment and order dated 17.11.2003. This judgment is under challenge
before this court.
10. We have heard Sri P. K. Pandey, learned Amicus curiae for the appellant and learned AGA
Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh on behalf of State.
11. Learned Amicus curiae has argued that information of arrest of appellant was received
some where around 3 p.m. and yet more than 3-4 hours were taken into various
documentation. He has expressed surprise that the FIR was lodged at 6.15 p.m. despite the
fact that the Police Station is merely 2 Kms away from the Unique Cyber World. It is further
pointed out that owner of this Unique Cyber World has not been produced by the
prosecution.
12. Learned Amicus curiae has also claimed that stated information allegedly transmitted to
Pakistan is easily available as per testimony of P.W.-3 S. N. G. Hussain Khan and P.W.-5 Col.
G. S. Jairam. Submission is that no evidence of recovery dated 5.10.2011 is available on
record. Submission further is that Ali Abbas at whose residence the appellant was residing, has
not been produced in evidence.
13. To the contrary, learned AGA has argued that testimony of police witnesses cannot be
disbelieved merely because of nature of their employment. Submission is that owner of Unique
Cyber World was afraid to testify in this case. Prosecution evidence in this regard is sufficient.
He has also drawn attention of this court towards the provision of Section 3 of the Official
Secret Act which provides that prosecution is not obliged to prove any particular act of accused
in order to show the purpose was prejudicial to safety of the country.

14. We have carefully examined all the materials available on record. The fact of the matter is
that Section 3 of the Official Secret Act makes it abundantly clear that prosecution is not
obliged to prove any particular act of accused tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the
safety or interest of the country in order to establish its case. Provision indicates that accused
can be convicted if from the proved circumstance of the case or from the proved conduct of
the accused and his companions, it is established that intention of accused was prejudicial to
the safety and security of the country.
15. It is pertinent to point out that act of spying is not defined under the Act. The complete
and plain reading of the provision would indicate that accused shall be guilty of offence of
spying, if such person, for the purpose prejudicial to the safety and security of the State,
approaches, inspects, pass-over or is in the vicinity or enters any prohibited place or makes
any sketch, plan, model or note which is calculated to be or intended to be directly or
indirectly useful to enemy or obtains, collects records or publishes or communicates to any
other person, any secret official code or password or any sketch, plan, model, articles or note,
other documents or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be
directly or indirectly useful to enemy or which relate to a matter, disclosure of which is likely to
affect the sovereignty and integrity of Country, security of State or friendly relations with
Foreign State.
16. The fact that information is easily available or available with difficulty is not pertinent
question in this regard. If the passing of such information adversely affect, sovereignty and
integrity of the State then the person responsible for this communication can be convicted
under the Act.
17. We have meticulously scanned the entire evidence of prosecution in this regard. P.W.-1 S.
D. Pandey has testified that he had been instructed along with S. I. Ajay Srivastava to reach
the shop of Unique Cyber World in private dress by S.H.O. P.S. Cantt. Subsequently, P.W.-2
D. P. Shukla also arrived at the alleged Unique Cyber World. Apparently, D. P. Shukla has
been given information by one informant. At 3.10 p.m. the appellant arrived in this Unique
Cyber World and obtained permission from the owner Shailesh Tripathi to use Computer. He
typed detailed e-mail for 25-30 minutes. Then he was intercepted by the police personnel. E-
mail in question contained various information regarding Air Force Installation and Army
Selection Office.
18. Appellant was arrested. A diary was recovered from him wherein several telephone of
foreigners including the telephone number of Pakistanis were found. His address was found.
One Ration Card indicating his Delhi residence, three cards and several other materials were
also recovered. The appellant was arrested at 4.15 p.m. Printouts were taken from the
Computer. Surprisingly private citizens available at Unique Cyber World declined to become
witness, however, several police personnel were present and they prepared Fard Ex-Ka-1.
19. On 5.10.2001 accused was taken to house of one Ali Abbas in Village Devchandrapur, P.S.
Saidpur, District Ghazipur where the said appellant was residing. His residential area was
searched in presence of two witnesses namely Ram Lal Sonkar and Gopal Kharwar. Ali Abbas
gave out a cash amount of Rs. 4400/-. Some domestic articles as well as railway tickets for
various places were also found. Some information pertaining to Eastern Command Barrackpur,
Fort Willium etc were also found. Fard Ex-ka-2 was prepared.
20. The question is whether public witness is necessary in each and every case. We do not
think that there is any law or legal requirement to support the prosecution case by necessarily
producing the public witness. We believe that learned Sessions Judge has rightly accepted the
testimonies of police witnesses to prove the recovery of documents and same cannot be
rejected merely on the ground that these witnesses belong to police department. Recovery of
documents from the appellant has been established not only by the testimony of P.W.-1 S. D.
Pandey but also by P.W.-2 D. P. Shukla who infact initiated the entire process.
21. Recovery of Indian Passport in the name of one Juber Khan gives the game away.
Admittedly, appellant belongs to Pakistan. He has given his address as Bilal Nagar Colony,
Police Station (PS) -Garibabad, Sindh, District Thattar, Pakistan in his statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C. There is no dispute about his nationality. The fact that he was arrested in Benaras
is also clear.
22. Now the question is if he entered India legally then where are his valid travel documents.
A valid Passport is required to visit India. All Pakistani nationals require not only Pakistani
Passport but also Indian Visa to visit India. No such documents were found with the appellant.
On the contrary he was in possession of a Passport issued by Indian Authorities in the name of
one Juber Khan with Pakistani Visa. There is absolutely no explanation for possession of this
Passport. The claim of appellant that he had come on a regular Pakistani Passport with Indian
Visa to India could have been proved very easily by him. Every valid traveler leaves
documentary trail which can be gathered, summoned and proved in the court of law.
23. Another question is whether the stated information being transmitted to Pakistan contain
any information prejudicial to the security and safety of State. Both P.W.-3 S. N. G. Hussain
Khan and P.W.-5 Col. G. S. Jairam have testified that this information was easily available in
Varanasi but both have also testified that transmission of stated information to the enemy
country is certainly prejudicial to the safety and security of the Nation. We also believe that
there are some information which are easily available to the citizens of this country but the
same may create problem for the safety and security of the Nation if transmitted to enemy
country. In any case Section 3(2) of the Official Secret Act entails that it would not be
necessary for the prosecution to show that accused person was guilty of any particular act
tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety and interest of the country. If a person is
transmitting any information with the purpose prejudicial to the safety and interest of the
Nation then he can be booked and convicted under the aforesaid Act.
24. We have carefully perused all the materials available on record. We believe that evidence
on record discloses offence under section 3 of the Official Secret Act. The fact that appellant
was living in India without any valid document is also clear, therefore, offence under Section
14 of the Foreigners Act also stands proved.
25. Appellant has also been punished under Section 468 IPC. It appears that he was using a
Passport issued in the name of one Juber Khan a Indian Citizen resident of Nagloi, Delhi after
removing his photograph and affixing his own photograph in the Passport. Prosecution has
claimed that this is forgery. Same must be punished. Section 468 IPC entails punishment for
the forgery for the purpose of cheating. Cheating is defined under Section 415 IPC. We believe
that offence of forgery is made out as the appellant has indeed prepared false documents
within the meaning of Section 464 IPC, however, we are not convinced that ingredients of
offence of cheating are made out. We believe that conduct and act of appellant would not fall
withing the domain of Section 468 IPC. However, the appellant was using a forged Passport as
a genuine which he knew or had reason to believe to be forged. Therefore, his punishment
under Section 471 IPC is legally sustainable.
26. Learned Trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 3 of the
Official Secret Act, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and Sections 468, 471 IPC. We do not
approve the conviction of appellant under Section 468 IPC; that leaves three conviction and
sentence against the appellant emanating from the single trial. Trial Judge has also imposed
fine under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and Section 471 IPC with default stipulation.
Learned Sessions Judge ordered that sentences so awarded shall run consecutively.
27. Learned Amicus curiae has argued that consecutive sentences are contrary to Section 31
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.). Section 31 of Cr.P.C. is
reproduced herein below:-
Section 31 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sentences in cases of conviction of several
offences at one trial.
(1) When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may, subject to
the provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), sentence him for such
offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefore which such Court is competent to
inflict; such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the
expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct, unless the Court directs that
such punishments shall run concurrently.
(2) In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the Court by reason only
of the aggregate punishment for the several offences being in excess of the punishment which
it is competent to inflict on conviction of a single offence, to send the offender for trial before a
higher Court: Provided that-
(a) in no case shall such person be sentenced to imprisonment for longer period than fourteen
years;
(b) the aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment which the
Court is competent to inflict for a single offence.
(3) For the purpose of appeal by a convicted person, the aggregate of the consecutive
sentences passed against him under this section shall be deemed to be a single sentence.
28. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that when a person is convicted for two
or more offences in a single trial, only then competent court can sentence offender to several
punishment prescribed for the offences. The proviso to Section 31 of Cr.P.C. entails that
sentenced person cannot be imprisoned for a period longer than 14 years and aggregate
punishment must not exceed twice the punishment which the Court is competent to inflict for a
single offence. The Full Bench of Apex Court in the case of O.M Cherian @ Thankachan vs
State Of Kerala & Ors, (2015) 2 SCC 501 2014 Indlaw SC 766, has said thus:-
Section 31 (1) Cr.P.C. enjoins a further direction by the court to specify the order in which one
particular sentence shall commence after the expiration of the other. Difficulties arise when the
Courts impose sentence of imprisonment for life and also sentences of imprisonment for fixed
term. In such cases, if the Court does not direct that the sentences shall run concurrently,
then the sentences will run consecutively by operation of Section 31(1) Cr.P.C. There is no
question of the convict first undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for life and thereafter
undergoing the rest of the sentences of imprisonment for fixed term and any such direction
would be unworkable. Since sentence of imprisonment for life means jail till the end of normal
life of the convict, the sentence of imprisonment of fixed term has to necessarily run
concurrently with life imprisonment. In such case, it will be in order if the Sessions Judges
exercise their discretion in issuing direction for concurrent running of sentences. Likewise if
two life sentences are imposed on the convict, necessarily, Court has to direct those sentences
to run concurrently.
29. We believe that whether sentence is to run concurrently or consecutively would depend
upon nature of offence and the facts and circumstances of the case but it is also clear that
combined and aggregate period of imprisonment shall not be more than 14 years and the
aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment which the Court is
competent to award. It is true that in a case triable by Sessions Court, there is no limitation to
award any punishment, sanctioned by law including capital punishment but proviso 1 of
Section 31 of Cr.P.C. also stipulates that in cases falling under sub section 2 the sentence shall
not in any case go beyond 14 years. In the instant case, the sum total of the sentences
awarded to appellant on different count comes to 33 years, therefore, in view of the above
settled legal position with regard to the application and interpretation of Section 31 of Cr.P.C.,
in our opinion, the learned trial Court has grossly erred in directing the sentences awarded
against the accused-appellant to run consecutively.
30. In the circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 3 of the Official Secret Act, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act
and Section 471 IPC and the sentence awarded on each aforesaid count along with fine, if any,
are confirmed. However, the conviction of appellant under Section 468 IPC is hereby quashed.
Further, the direction with regard to running of sentences consecutively is set aside and it is
directed that the sentences awarded to the appellant would run concurrently. Further it is
provided that the appellant on completion of awarded sentence shall be deported back to his
country of origin i.e. Pakistan. The concerned Jail Authority, Concerned Court and Inspector
General of Police, Varanasi Zone will make arrangement for the deportation of the appellant
with the help of appropriate central authorities.
31. Office will certify this order to the court concerned within ten days. Trial court shall
thereafter communicate compliance of this judgment within a month thereafter.
Appeal partly allowed
Louis Vuitton v Gaurav Bhatia and others

Delhi High Court
23 May 2017
Case Analysis
Bench Deepa Sharma
Where Reported 2017 Indlaw DEL 1464
Case Digest Subject: Intellectual Property

Keywords: Trade Marks Act, 1999, Indian Penal Code, 1860,
Income-tax Act, 1961, Delhi
Summary: Intellectual Property - Indulgent in supply -
Counterfeit products - Plaintiff is registered owner of trademark
known as ‘Toile Monogram’ but defendant was offering for sale
and supplying counterfeit products bearing several registered
trademarks of plaintiff on this website - Plaintiff filed suit for
permanent injunction against defendants, restraining them from
infringing its trademark, copyright and from passing off goods of
plaintiff - Hence, instant suit - Whether, defendants indulge into
supply of counterfeit products of plaintiff.
Held, documents on record also conclusively show that defendant
nos. 1 and 2 have been indulging into supply of counterfeit
products of plaintiff and for that purpose, two FIRs have already
been registered. The fact that they were arrested and remained in
judicial custody clearly proves that defendants have infringed
trademark of plaintiff and also copyright which vest in plaintiff and
is also indulging into business of passing off counterfeit goods as
that of plaintiffs. There is no doubt that plaintiff is entitled for
damages because defendants have infringed his trademark and
copyright and has been selling counterfeit products of plaintiff and
has, caused losses not only in goodwill and reputation, but also
financial. No evidence on record to ascertain actual damages
suffered by plaintiff. Courts are not supposed to do guess work
and grant damages for losses suffered by plaintiff. The damages
have to be actual and not superfluous. Court restrained
defendants, their partners, officers, servants, agents, distributors,
stockists and representatives from manufacturing, selling and
offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in
wallets, handbags, suitcases, luggage, purses, belts, footwear,
jewellery or any other goods bearing plaintiff's trademark and
defendants are also directed to render accounts of profit earned
by them. No damages are granted. Suit disposed of.
Delhi High Court
23 May 2017
Louis Vuitton
Gaurav Bhatia and others
Case No : CS(COMM) 89/2017 and IA Nos. 13470/2014 & 21815/2014

Bench : Deepa Sharma
Citation : 2017 Indlaw DEL 1464
Summary : Intellectual Property - Indulgent in supply - Counterfeit products - Plaintiff is
registered owner of trademark known as ‘Toile Monogram’ but defendant was offering for sale and
supplying counterfeit products bearing several registered trademarks of plaintiff on this website -
Plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction against defendants, restraining them from infringing its
trademark, copyright and from passing off goods of plaintiff - Hence, instant suit - Whether,
defendants indulge into supply of counterfeit products of plaintiff.
Held, documents on record also conclusively show that defendant nos. 1 and 2 have been
indulging into supply of counterfeit products of plaintiff and for that purpose, two FIRs have
already been registered. The fact that they were arrested and remained in judicial custody clearly
proves that defendants have infringed trademark of plaintiff and also copyright which vest in
plaintiff and is also indulging into business of passing off counterfeit goods as that of plaintiffs.
There is no doubt that plaintiff is entitled for damages because defendants have infringed his
trademark and copyright and has been selling counterfeit products of plaintiff and has, caused
losses not only in goodwill and reputation, but also financial. No evidence on record to ascertain
actual damages suffered by plaintiff. Courts are not supposed to do guess work and grant
damages for losses suffered by plaintiff. The damages have to be actual and not superfluous.
Court restrained defendants, their partners, officers, servants, agents, distributors, stockists and
representatives from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly
dealing in wallets, handbags, suitcases, luggage, purses, belts, footwear, jewellery or any other
goods bearing plaintiff's trademark and defendants are also directed to render accounts of profit
earned by them. No damages are granted. Suit disposed of.
The Order of the Court was as follows :

1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against the
defendants, restraining them from infringing its trademark, copyright and also from passing off
the goods of the plaintiff as that of theirs and for rendition of accounts and damages.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that it is registered company existing under the laws of
France and having its registered office at 2, rues du Pont-Neuf, 75001- Paris, France. Col. J.K.
Sharma (Retired) is the authorized person representing the plaintiff under a Power of Attorney.
It is submitted that the plaintiff-company was founded by Mr Louis Vuitton and that it has a
reputation of producing lifestyle goods having a distinctive design and exclusive craftsmanship
which looks elegant and high style. They are specialized in the production and distribution of
higher quality of luggage, hand bags, travel and fashion accessories for men and women,
including ready to wear, shoes and jewellery. They maintain strict quality, control and have
exclusive retail network. Their distribution is through a limited network of more than 460
exclusive stores located in selected cities upon the work. They only sell their products through
these exclusive stores and outlets and their goods are available only at retain prices fixed by
the plaintiff. The plaintiff opened its first exclusive store in India in 2003 at Oberoi Hotel in
New Delhi and now they have stores one each in New Delhi, Bangalore and Chennai and two in
Mumbai. These are the only 5 places where they sell their products. The plaintiffs spent a huge
sum in advertisement of their products in India and their product has widespread recognition
in India. Their net sale in India during the period 2007-2010 was approximately Rs. 213
crores. Their brand name LOUIS VUITTON was ranked No.17 by survey conducted in
Interbrand in 2012 and is considered top fashion design. It is also a trademark and its initial in
an intertwined manner is also a trademark since 1854 which appears on number of its
products and is a signature symbol of the plaintiff. It also uses a canvas design with a flower
pattern and intertwined initials of Louis Vuitton (LV) and this pattern is emblematic symbol of
the plaintiff. The design is known as "Toile Monogram" and it is a registered trademark of the
plaintiff. It introduced 33 different colours called the "Murakami Monogram Multicolour as
variation to "Toile Monogram" and enjoys copyright over the said pattern which is an artistic
work and is registered under No. VAI-250-120 with the Copyright Office of the United States of
America. Its registration numbers in India in classes 3,14, 18 and 25 are 441451, 448229,
441452, 448230, 448231, 441453, 448233, 448235, 448234 and 861145.
3. It is submitted that defendants 1, 2 and 3 are Directors of defendant No.4 which is a trading
company and operates trading under the name of Digaaz e-commerce Pvt. Ltd. which operates
an e-commerce website www.digaaz.com on which it offers for sale lifestyle and fashion
products. It is found that the defendant is offering for sale and supplying counterfeit products
bearing several registered trademarks of the plaintiff on this website. The domain name
www.digaaz.com is registered in the name of defendant No.2 and, therefore, it is directly
under its control. It is submitted that the plaintiffs came to know on 23.05.2013 of the
infringement of its trademark by the defendants and also they discovered that the defendants
were indulging into counterfeIT ACTivities and supplying counterfeit goods of plaintiff. The
plaintiff found that the Registrar of the domain name www.digaaz.com was NAME.COM, INC.,
located at 2500, East Second Avenue, Second Floor, Denver, Colorado 80206, USA and the
Internet Service Provider (ISP) hosting the infringing website parked onthe said domain name
was Pioneer Elabs Limited, located at Plot No. 16, APIIC. Software Units Layout, Madhapur,
Hyderabad 500 081. The plaintiff thereafter notified the said ISP by electronic mail dated
25.07.2013 the fact that the website www.digaaz.com was offering for sale and supplying
counterfeit products of the plaintiff against online orders and requested them to remove the
said website. It also sent a reminder on 06.08.2013. The said ISP, however, has not replied
the notices of the plaintiff. The plaintiff learnt that the defendant has changed the ISP in
October, 2013 and now another ISP, Limestone Networks, located in Dallas, TX 75202, USA is
hosting the defendant's website. The change of the ISP by defendant is an indication of the
mala fide intention of the defendant to continue infringing the trademark of the plaintiff
negatively by indulging into counterfeiting activities. It is also submitted that the act of the
defendant offering the counterfeit products of the plaintiff which are identical to the product of
the plaintiff amounts to infringement of its trademark. It is further submitted that the
defendants were representing to the public on their website that the goods they are supplying
were 100% authentic while at the same time they are supplying counterfeit products. The
defendants are pricing the goods between Rs.12,000/- to 59,000/- and are also offering
discounts up to 80%. The supply by the defendant of the counterfeit products of the plaintiff
bound to affect the goodwill of the plaintiff negatively and is bound to cause immense and
irreparable harm in reputation. The act of the defendant is also causing loss of its business and
he is also playing with the trust of the people which they have in the products of the plaintiff.
It is submitted that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as the
defendant's website is active in Delhi as well and it is also targeting Delhi's customers and
selling articles in Delhi as well. It is further submitted that this Court has the jurisdiction under
Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act as well since the plaintiff is a registered trademark and
it is carrying on its business in Delhi through its exclusive boutique at the Emporio Mall, DLF
Emporio, Vasant Kunj. On these facts, it is prayed that the defendants, their partners, officers,
servants, agents, distributors, stockists and representatives be restrained from manufacturing,
selling and offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in wallets, handbags,
suitcases, luggage, purses, belts, footwear, jewellery or any other goods bearing the
trademark "Louis Vuitton" or logo or the "Toile Monogram" pattern. It is also prayed that the
domain name of the defendant be suspended and ISP hosting the impugned website of the
defendant be directed to remove the said website. It is also prayed that the defendant be
directed to render the accounts of the profit earned by them while indulging into the activities
and supplying counterfeit products.
4. The defendants were duly served. They put in appearance and filed their written statement
and also participated in the admission/denial of documents. The matter was also referred at
the request of the parties to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Learned
counsel for the plaintiff brought to the notice of the Court that the defendant did not appear in
the Mediation Centre on all the four dates fixed by the learned Mediator. The defendant
thereafter stopped attending the Court's proceedings. The plaintiff led their evidences and the
witnesses of the plaintiff were not cross-examined. Consequently, they were proceeded ex
parte.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record. The plaintiffs have duly
proved on record that Col. J.K. Sharma (Retired) holds a Power of Attorney. The Power of
Attorney is proved as Ex.PW-1/1. The plaintiff has proved that they are the registered owner
of the trademarks in class 3, 14, 18 and 25 vide documents exhibited as Ex.PW-1/9 to Ex.PW-
1/17. The plaintiff's company has also proved on record that the defendant is dealing with
counterfeit products not only of plaintiff's company, but of other luxury brand such as
Montblanc, Hermes, Cartier, Burberry, etc. and are offering these counterfeit products for sale
on their website. The documents are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW-1/32 (colly). The plaintiffs
have also proved on record their investigator's affidavit as Ex.PW-1/31 (colly) which shows
that it came to know about the infringement of their trademark by defendant only through
investigator. The minutes of the meeting of the Board of Director are proved as Ex.PW-1/2 and
the certificate of registration of the plaintiff company is prove as Ex.PW-1/3. Vide documents
Ex.PW-1/5 (Colly), the plaintiff's witness has proved that the plaintiff specializes in the
production and distribution of high quality luggage, handbags, travel and fashion accessories,
men's and women's ready to-wear, shoes and jewellery under the brand name "Louis Vuitton"
the logo " " and the 'Toile Monogram' pattern since the year 1854. The extract of the plaintiff
website is also proved on record as Ex.PW-1/22 (colly), Ex.PW- l/24(colly), Ex.PW-1/27,
Ex.PW-1/28, Ex.PW-1/29 and Ex.PW-l/33(colly) showing that public identifies plaintiff's
products from its trade dress which includes logo compromising of "Toile Monogram". The
Article of Association of defendant-company is exhibited as Ex.PW-1/23. The print out of
defendant's website www.digaaz.com displaying counterfeit product of plaintiff's trademark is
proved as PW-1/29 (colly). The print out of the complaints received from the consumer
regarding the products supplied by the defendant are exhibited as Ex.PW-1/33 (colly). The
copy of the First Information Report (FIR) registered against the defendants is exhibited as
Ex.PW-1/35. The seizure memo indicating the volume of counterfeit products recovered from
the defendant's premises is exhibited as Ex.PW- 1/36. Some other complaints is also proved as
Ex.PW-1/38 and Ex.PW-1/39 (Colly). A complaint by one of the consumers against the
defendant on its website was registered by the cyber cell of the Chandigarh Police vide FIR
No. 397/2014 under Sections 406/420 IPC and 66 of IT ACT PF, PS-39, Chandigarh as Ex.PW-
1/35. Documents showing that defendants No. 1 and 2 were arrested by the Cyber Cell and
remained in judicial custody for 14 days is also proved on record as Ex.PW-2/1 to Ex.PW-2/4
(colly) by the Sub-Inspector of Cyber Crime Investigation Cell.
6. I have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record. From the documents placed
on record, it is apparent that the suit has been filed by a duly authorized person. Various
documents showing the registration of the trademark in favour of the plaintiff proves that the
plaintiff is the registered owner of the trademark Louis Vuitton and logo and "Toile Monogram"
pattern. The documents on record also conclusively show that the defendants 1 and 2 have
been indulging into supply of counterfeit products of the plaintiff and for that purpose, two
FIRs have already been registered. The fact that they were arrested and remained in judicial
custody clearly proves that the defendants have infringed the trademark of the plaintiff and
also the copyright which vest in the plaintiff and is also indulging into the business of passing
off the counterfeit goods as that of the plaintiffs. The defendants have also claimed the
damages and has relied on the findings in the case Microsoft Corporation vs. Yogesh Papat
2005 (30) PTC 245 (Del) 2005 Indlaw DEL 326 and Ardath Tobacco Company & Ors. v. Munna
Bhai, 2009(39) PTC 208 (Del) 2009 Indlaw DEL 303.
7. There is no doubt that the plaintiff is entitled for the damages because the defendants have
infringed his trademark and the copyright and has been selling counterfeit products of the
plaintiff and has, therefore, caused losses not only in goodwill and reputation, but also
financial. However, there is no evidence on record to ascertain the actual damages suffered by
the plaintiff. The Courts are not supposed to do the guess work and grant damages for the
losses suffered by the plaintiff. The damages have to be actual and not superfluous.
8. In view of the above discussion, I hereby restrained the defendants, their partners, officers,
servants, agents, distributors, stockists and representatives from manufacturing, selling and
offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in wallets, handbags, suitcases,
luggage, purses, belts, footwear, jewellery or any other goods bearing the plaintiff's trademark
"Louis Vuitton" or [VERNACULAR PORTION DELETED] logo or the "Toile Monogram" pattern.
The defendants are also restrained from using the domain name and directed to remove the
said website from ISP. The defendants are also directed to render the accounts of the profit
earned by them. However, no damages are granted.
9. The suit stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
Suit disposed of
Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and another

v Amar Infrastructure Limited and others
Supreme Court of India
09 March 2017
Case Analysis
Bench Arun Mishra, Amitava Roy
Where Reported 2017 Indlaw SCO 28; (2017) 5 SCC 387; 2017(4) SCALE 171
Case Digest Subject: Contract & Commercial

Keywords: Registration, Contract, Attorney
Summary: Contract & Commercial - Rejection of financial bid -
Legality - Appellant-Corporation floated tender for the work of up-
gradation of infrastructure and ultimately bid of appellant-Raipur
Construction was accepted and work order was issued to it - While
so, respondent, who was disqualified, filed representation on 1-4-
2016 against L-2, Arcons Construction to the effect that it had
been found eligible for opening financial bid despite not having a
Hot Mix Plant - HC after considering discrepancy in document of
technical evaluation filed by respondent and the one filed by
appellant-Corporation, vide order dt.28-7-2016 directed SP,
Raipur to depute competent officer from State Police to inspect,
examine and analyze date available on computer of appellant-
Corporation and determine various points - In pursuance of said
orders, Cyber Crime Cell of State Police filed report and after
perusing said report, HC opined that L-2 tenderer basically was
not qualified to participate and had been made to qualify for
opening of its financial bid in order to give contract to appellant-
Raipur construction and that L-2 was illegally included in qualified
list of bidders by Technical Evaluation Committee - As such,
contract granted to appellant-Raipur construction was quashed
and further police investigation was ordered to fix responsibility
for manipulations made in documents filed - Hence, instant
appeals by appellant-Corporation and appellant-Raipur
construction - Whether Hot Mix Plant was necessary to open
financial bid.
Held, in the list of mandatory plant etc. necessary for pre-
qualification criteria, the Hot Mix Plant is not mentioned and so, it
was not a pre-requisite to qualify for opening financial bid.
Further, in the list of minimum plant, equipments and shuttering
provided in cl.51 of the contract document, 18 items were
mentioned in which again the Hot Mix Plant was not mentioned in
the list of 'Minimum plant equipment and Shuttering'. However,
Hot Mix Plant is mentioned in s.V of Schedule D and the same
makes it clear that though it was part of tender form and was in
the list of approved tools and machinery to be used for road work,
it was not necessary for the purpose of technical evaluation at the
stage of pre-qualification for opening of financial bid. Further,
considering various clauses, both bidders L-1 and L-2 were
technically qualified for opening of their financial bids. Hence, the
opinion of HC that L-2 was made to be qualify in spite of fact that
it was not having Hot Mix Plant, thus, could not be accepted as
available ground to disqualify L-2 tenderer. The Hot Mix Plant was
not a mandatory requirement so as to open the financial bid.
Thus, the financial bids of two tenderers who succeeded at the
pre-qualification stage had been rightly opened and considered
and appellant-Raipur Construction was not favored by qualifying
the disqualified tenderer-L-2 to give the contract to it in
surreptitious method and manner as observed by HC. Further, in
the absence of malafide or arbitrariness which is not made out in
instant matter and as 50 per cent of the work had been completed
by the time HC passed orders, no interference could be made in
instant matter. As such, writ petition of respondent filed in HC is
dismissed and impugned judgment, order and directions passed
by HC are set aside. Appeals allowed.
All Cases Cited Relied On

Tejas Constructions & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v Municipal Council,
Sendhwa & Anr.2012 Indlaw SC 443, (2012) 6 SCC 464, 2012 (5)
AWC 4596, 2012 (3) BC 74, 2012 (2) JabLJ 364, JT 2012 (4) SC
574, [2012] 4 S.C.R. 190
Supreme Court of India
9 March 2017
Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and another
Amar Infrastructure Limited and others
Case No : Civil Appeal No(s). 4248 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6695 of 2017), Civil Appeal
No(s). 4251 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7723 of 2017)
Bench : Arun Mishra, Amitava Roy
Citation : 2017 Indlaw SCO 28, (2017) 5 SCC 387, 2017(4) SCALE 171
Summary : Contract & Commercial - Rejection of financial bid - Legality - Appellant-Corporation
floated tender for the work of up-gradation of infrastructure and ultimately bid of appellant-Raipur
Construction was accepted and work order was issued to it - While so, respondent, who was
disqualified, filed representation on 1-4-2016 against L-2, Arcons Construction to the effect that it
had been found eligible for opening financial bid despite not having a Hot Mix Plant - HC after
considering discrepancy in document of technical evaluation filed by respondent and the one filed
by appellant-Corporation, vide order dt.28-7-2016 directed SP, Raipur to depute competent officer
from State Police to inspect, examine and analyze date available on computer of appellant-
Corporation and determine various points - In pursuance of said orders, Cyber Crime Cell of State
Police filed report and after perusing said report, HC opined that L-2 tenderer basically was not
qualified to participate and had been made to qualify for opening of its financial bid in order to give
contract to appellant-Raipur construction and that L-2 was illegally included in qualified list of
bidders by Technical Evaluation Committee - As such, contract granted to appellant-Raipur
construction was quashed and further police investigation was ordered to fix responsibility for
manipulations made in documents filed - Hence, instant appeals by appellant-Corporation and
appellant-Raipur construction - Whether Hot Mix Plant was necessary to open financial bid.
Held, in the list of mandatory plant etc. necessary for pre-qualification criteria, the Hot Mix Plant is
not mentioned and so, it was not a pre-requisite to qualify for opening financial bid. Further, in the
list of minimum plant, equipments and shuttering provided in cl.51 of the contract document, 18
items were mentioned in which again the Hot Mix Plant was not mentioned in the list of 'Minimum
plant equipment and Shuttering'. However, Hot Mix Plant is mentioned in s.V of Schedule D and
the same makes it clear that though it was part of tender form and was in the list of approved
tools and machinery to be used for road work, it was not necessary for the purpose of technical
evaluation at the stage of pre-qualification for opening of financial bid. Further, considering various
clauses, both bidders L-1 and L-2 were technically qualified for opening of their financial bids.
Hence, the opinion of HC that L-2 was made to be qualify in spite of fact that it was not having Hot
Mix Plant, thus, could not be accepted as available ground to disqualify L-2 tenderer. The Hot Mix
Plant was not a mandatory requirement so as to open the financial bid. Thus, the financial bids of
two tenderers who succeeded at the pre-qualification stage had been rightly opened and
considered and appellant-Raipur Construction was not favored by qualifying the disqualified
tenderer-L-2 to give the contract to it in surreptitious method and manner as observed by HC.
Further, in the absence of malafide or arbitrariness which is not made out in instant matter and as
50 per cent of the work had been completed by the time HC passed orders, no interference could
be made in instant matter. As such, writ petition of respondent filed in HC is dismissed and
impugned judgment, order and directions passed by HC are set aside. Appeals allowed.
The Order of the Court was as follows :

1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals have been preferred by Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation
Ltd. (in short, 'the CSIDC') and M/s. Raipur Construction Pvt. Ltd. being aggrieved by the
judgment and order dated 14.02.2007 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Writ
Petition (C) No.1053 of 2016 thereby allowing the same and quashing the contract given to
M/s. Raipur Construction Pvt. Ltd. by the CSIDC with respect to the work of "upgradation of
infrastructure i.e. roads, drainage system and water supply in Sirgitti under Modified Industrial
Infrastructure Up-gradation Scheme (MIIUS) at Sirgitti, Bilaspur."
3. Tender was floated by the CSIDC on 3.11.2015 for the aforesaid work within the stipulated
time period of 18 months and tenders were invited online, to be submitted by 12.01.2016.
4. A writ petition bearing WP(C) No.227 of 2016, was filed challenging the notice inviting
tenders issued by the CSIDC and the same was dismissed vide order dated 2.2.2016 by the
High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur. The online bids were submitted. The CSIDC opened the
tenders for determining whether the bidders satisfied the pre-qualification criteria. Based upon
the information supplied by the bidders, the CSIDC prepared charts of technical evaluation
documents in the form of Annexures 'A' 'B' 'C' and 'D' which were signed by the Chief
Executive Engineer and placed before the Tender Evaluation Committee in its meeting held on
03.03.2016. The CSIDC filed a Technical Evaluation Sheet as Annexures R-4/3 and 5/3 which
was placed before the Technical Evaluation Committee whereas the petitioner in the High
Court i.e. M/s. Amar Infrastructure Ltd. filed the document "Annexure P-4" as technical
evaluation document.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that the documents of technical evaluation filed by CSIDC
were signed by the Executive Engineer and the document filed by M/s. Amar Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. as Annexure P-4 does not bear signatures of any official.
6. On 3.3.2016, Tender Evaluation Committee considered the matter and had drawn the
minutes which is signed by Mr. S. Rajgire, Executive Engineer Division-IV, Mr. G.V.S.P. Rao,
Deputy Manager (Accounts) and Mr. Abdul Shakil, Chief Engineer. Two bidders namely; M/s.
Arcons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Chhindwara and M/s. Raipur Construction Pvt. Ltd. were found
qualified. It has been opined by the Evaluation Committee that they fulfill all the requisite
qualifications. Hence, it was resolved unanimously to open the financial bids of the aforesaid
two bidders. The financial bids were ultimately opened on 5.3.2016. The bid submitted by M/s.
Raipur Construction Pvt. Ltd. was ranked as L-1 as compared to that of M/s. Arcons
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Chhindwara whose bid was ranked as L-2. Ultimately the bid L-1 of
M/s. Raipur Construction Pvt. Ltd. had been accepted on 8.7.2016 and work order had been
issued by the CSIDC to M/s. Raipur Construction Pvt. Ltd.
7. The petitioner/respondent herein, namely, M/s. Amar Infrastructure Ltd. was disqualified on
the ground that its construction experience was not found as per the requisite criteria indicated
in experience certificate, quantity of DLC (M-10) i.e. 3194 cum submitted under the key
activities of construction experience of requisite quantity of work done was not in accordance
with the nomenclature of PWD SOR. In the nomenclature of DLC in SOR there was no M-20
type of concrete, as such the amount of DLC as presented in the certificate had been rejected.
8. It is pertinent to mention that Writ Petition No.664 of 2016 was filed before the High Court
of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur by M/s. B.B. Verma, who was also one of the unsuccessful bidders,
against the CSIDC and others. In the said writ petition, the CSIDC had filed its reply dated
14.3.2016 and had submitted the document dated 3.3.2016 i.e. the chart containing technical
evaluation in which the aforesaid facts were mentioned. The writ petition preferred by M/s.
B.B. Verma was ultimately dismissed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh vide order dated
15.03.2016.
9. However, M/s. Amar Infrastructure Ltd. filed a representation on 1.4.2016 not against the
successful bidder but against M/s. Arcons Construction Pvt. Ltd. to the effect that it had been
found eligible for opening financial bid despite not having a Hot Mix -Plant. After the writ
petition in question was filed on 8.4.2016 in the High Court, reply was filed by the CSIDC on
7.7.2016.
10. The High Court, considering the discrepancy in the document of technical evaluation which
was filed by the M/s. Amar Infrastructure Limited and the one filed by the CSIDC, had vide
order dated 28.07.2016 directed the Superintendent of Police, Raipur to depute an
independent and competent officer from the Cyber Crime Cell of the State Police to inspect,
examine and analyse the data available on the computer of the CSIDC and to determine the
following points:
"1. What was the initial bid document e-filed by Respondent No.6.
2. Whether in the tender document submitted by respondent no.6, the list of plant and
machinery contained hot mix plant or not? Whether said list was certified by the authorised
signatory or not?
3. The concerned Officer will after examining the documents also determine whether the
document Annexure-P/4 has been prepared on the computer of the CSIDC or not?
4. The officer shall also intimate the date of preparation of the document Annexure R4,5/3
filed by the CSIDC and clearly intimate when the document was initially prepared and if any
changes were made to this document then on what date. Report be submitted to this Court
within a period of 6 weeks from today."
11. Pursuant to the order, the report was filed in the High Court on 9.11.2016. The report
submitted by the Cyber Crime Cell is extracted hereunder:
"In the compliance of above command, three hard disks were confiscated and tested from the
computers of CSIDC by the Cyber Specialist Police headquarters, Raipur and a document was
received by the help of chips. After testing following results were obtained:
1. Information related to point no.01 is attached in page 115.
2. Information related to point no.02 is attached on 115 page and on page no. 57 a list of all
documents in e-tender created through respondent no.6 are present which does not contain
any mentioning of hot mix plant and in this list a seal of company and signature is used in the
place of authorised signatory.
3. According to the compliance of information on point no.3 and no.4 a hard disk was
confiscated from computer no.3 which has a description as follows:
(A) of Hitachi Company S/R no. 0138264JPT3MAOCOA, 30 G.B.
(B) of HC Company S/R No. 0A33535BS19570C7A, 164G.B.
(C) of Western Digital Company S/R No.WCAYUA915673, 164 G.B.
Confiscated Hard disk was tested by Cyber Crime Expert.
The information of point no. 03 and 04 of the Test report is as follows:
Point No. (3) - Document Annexure P/4 is created on the computer of CSIDC, which is located
in the Computers' Hitachi Company hard disk who's S/R No. is OA 39264JPT3MAOCOA, 320
G.B. in the file named Annexure -Bb, Last modified Date -06.03.2016. Time :-4.46 P.M. the
found file is of 80 K.B. which contain 08 pages. The information related to annexure: P/4 was
found in the page nos.6,7,8.
The information related to point no. (4) is found in the file Annexure -A Last modified Date :
14.01.2016 Time 12.33 P.M. which was located in the CSIDC hard disk of Hitachi Company
who's serial no. is 0A39264JPT3MAOCOA, 320 G.B. According to which document Annexure R-
4, 5/3 is presented in respected court which is a "Technical Evaluation" chart and in the
column of tender form price in the column no.2 of the tender form, the D.D. number deposited
by the companies taking place in tender is clearly mentioned as well the name of the banks
are clearly mentioned. But the file obtained from the hard disk "technical evaluation" chart
who is named as Annexure R-4, 5/3 contains only the D.D. No and does not contain any bank
name, in this way, both files have differences in them.
The information related to "Technical Evaluation" Chart Annexure "B" is located in the file
named Annexure -B, Last modified Date : 04-07-2016 time-02.08 P.M. which is situated in the
Hitachi Company Hard disk who's S/R No. is 0A39264JPT3MAOCOA, 320 G.B. the sixe of the
file is 24 K.B. and contains 02k pages. The attachment for Supreme Court and file found in
Hard disk have no differences.
The information related to "Technical Evaluation" Chart Annexure "C" is located in the file
named Annexure -C, Last modified Date: 04.07.2016 time - 02.09 P.M. which is situated in the
Hitachi Company Hard disk who's S/R no. is 0A39264JPT3MAOCOA, 320 G.B. the size of the
file is 29.7 K.B. andk contains 02 pages. The attachment for Supreme Court and file found in
Hard disk have no differences.
The perusal of Document Test reports (I/pages) and C.D.'s as well as chips concluded by the
Cyber Cell Specialist is submitted.
Attachment : As per above points."
12. The report was filed on 11.11.2016 and the High Court has found that the document which
were placed on record; one filed by the CSIDC and other filed by the appellant were
substantially different with respect to the fact whether Hot Mix Plant was owned by M/s.
Arcons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and also that modification had been made in the document on
4.7.2016. Thus, the High Court had opined that L-2 tenderer basically was not qualified to
participate and had been made to qualify for opening of its financial bid in order to give the
contract anyhow or somehow to M/s. Raipur Construction Pvt. Ltd. It concluded that M/s.
Arcons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was illegally included in the qualified list of bidders by the
Technical Evaluation Committee in its meeting dated 3.3.2016, and thus, the contract granted
to M/s. Raipur Construction Pvt. Ltd. has been quashed and at the same time further police
investigation has been ordered so as to fix the responsibility for the manipulations made in the
document filed by the CSIDC and/or by M/s. Amar Infrastructure Ltd.
13. Aggrieved thereby the appeals have been preferred in this Court.
14. Mr. Mukul Rohatagi, learned Attorney General alongwith Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Mr. A.C.
Boxipatro and Mr. Ashish Kumar Sinha, appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that
there is no manipulation in the Technical Evaluation Bid Sheet and pre-qualification criteria
was fulfilled by both the tenderers whose financial bids were opened. Owning Hot Mix Plant
was not a mandatory condition and thus it could not be said that the technical evaluation was
illegal in any manner whatsoever. The financial bids of the qualified tenderers were required to
be opened and Hot Mix Plant was not in the list of plant and equipments which were necessary
to be possessed to qualify at the pre-qualification stage.
15. It was also submitted by the learned Attorney General that the High Court has
unnecessarily doubted the documents of Technical Evaluation Sheet placed on record by the
CSIDC. It had been filed within seven days of the finalisation of the financial bid in the High
Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the writ application which was preferred by M/s. B.B.
Verma which was dismissed on 15.3.2016 relying upon the very same documents which have
been filed by the CSIDC in the instant writ application also. The document which has been filed
by M/s. Amar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is not signed by anybody and even if taken to be an
assessment made with respect to the entire tender documents by CSIDC, hot mix plant being
not a pre-requisite and essential to be possessed for opening of the financial bid, the reasoning
employed by the High Court that L-2 was got qualified only in order to ensure that financial bid
of L-1 could be opened so that it would not be left as the only tenderer, whose financial bid
then could not have been opened being only bidder in the fray and re-tendering would have
been necessitated, falls down.
16. Mr. Garvesh Kabra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent ingeniously
submitted that other tenderer had been disqualified namely; M/s. Anil Buildcon (I) Pvt. Ltd. on
the basis of not possessing the requisite 'concrete paver' and it is apparent from the Technical
Evaluation Sheet filed by the respondent as P-4 that the L-2 tenderer M/s. Arcons
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. did not possess Hot Mix Plant at the time of submitting the tender
which fact was noted in the requisite column of the evaluation sheet (P4). He has also
submitted that it was necessary to submit all the documents alongwith the tender forms
including what were mentioned in Schedule D Section V. Thus, it was submitted by the learned
counsel that there had been manipulation made at the instance of the CSIDC as Technical
Evaluation Sheet filed by CSIDC does not tally with the technical evaluation document filed by
the petitioner before the High Court. It appears that manipulation had been done in the
document as observed by the High Court on 4th July, 2016. The High Court has rightly
disqualified L-2, and thus it became necessary to invite the fresh bids as per the prevailing
norms.Consequently, the order had been passed by the High Court, keeping in view the report
of the Cyber Crime Cell. Hence no case for interference is made out in the appeals. The order
passed by the High Court is on proper consideration.
17. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it is necessary to consider the tender
document itself and the requirements for pre-qualification. Whether having Hot Mix Plant was
necessary qualification? In the tender document, list is given, the same is extracted as under :
"(a) Only Schedule A and Section 1 of Schedule D are to be filled & signed by the tenderer
(b) All the certificates as per pre qualification criteria shall be appended with relevant forms of
schedule "D".
1. PART ONE (CSIDC F-I)-(Attached herewith, to be submit along the tender)
(a) Press notice & corrigendum
(b) Detailed NIT Part(b)
(a) Schedule A
(i) Cost Abstract
(ii) Bill of Quantities
(b) Schedule B- NIL
(c) Schedule C-NIL
(d) Schedule D
Section 1....Technical tender forms
(i) Letter of Technical Tender
(ii) Tenderer's Information Sheet (iii)Annual Turnover
(iv) Specific Construction Experiences
(v) Declaration
(vi) Check list for Technical tender evaluation Section II. Scope of work
Section III. Technical specifications of work
Section IV. Special conditions of contract Section V. List of approved makes."
(emphasis added by us)

18. The tender inviting notice requires certain documents to be mandatorily submitted online.
The list of the documents as contained in para 1 of the tender notice is extracted hereinbelow:
"It is mandatory to submit the following online:
(A)Details of Earnest money in FD (in favour of M.D.C.S.I.D.C. Raipur) from any nationalised
bank.
(B) Valid registration of CT/ VAT and VAT clearance certificate/ it return acknowledgment.
(C) Letter of technical tender.
(d) Tender's information sheet.
(E) Specific Construction Experience.
(F) Construction Experience in key activities.
(G) List of key plants & equipment certificate, available with the bidder/lease or rented. (List
enclosed).
(H) Declaration check list for technical tender evaluation.
(I) All desired document should be attested by Notary.
(J) All desired document scan copy submitted to Online should also to be submitted physically
by post in separate envelope. Any additional documents which are not submitted online but
submitted physically will not be accepted.
(K) PAN No. details.
(L) Copy of valid registration in CGPWD/Central/State/Semi Govt. Of India or PSU of
appropriate clause.
(M) Tenderer has to submit audited balance sheets of their financial turn over/accounts along
with profit & Loss account for the any three (3) year out of last five (5) years.
(N) The contractor shall submit list of works which are in hand.
(O) Affidavit in Original should be in prescribed format regarding that given all the
informations are true must be attached on Rs.100/- Non judicial stamp paper."
(emphasis added by us)
19. It is apparent that list of plant and machinery as "available" with the bidder, on lease or
rented, was to be enclosed. It is apparent that L-2 did not mention that Hot Mix Plant was
available with it. It has to be considered whether Hot Mix Plant was necessary for opening of
the financial bid.
20. The detailed notice inviting tenders required a tender to be submitted in three envelopes in
the following manner:
"SUBMISSION OF TENDER DOCUMENTS 1. Tender documents to be submitted in

three envelopes marked A,B & C on line as
per mentioned key dates on portal of
https://csidc.cgeprocurenment.gov.in
Envelope A will contain earnest money
Envelope B technical qualification/ details
required for qualification as per NIT and
other details Envelope C shall have financial
offer.
2. For technical qualification, eligibility

criteria an earnest money the document
submitted on line shall only be treated as
final submission of document. Any physical

submission of extra paper/ document shall
not be taken for consideration for Technical
qualification/ eligibility criteria.
PLACE AND DATE OF OPENING OF TENDER The tenders shall be opened at the office of
Managing Director, CSIDC, First Floor,
Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road no. 1, Telibandha,
Raipur 9C.G.) as mentioned in key dates.
After that Envelop (C) of only eligible
applicants will be opened on the same day or
any suitable date of the qualified tenderers
only.
21. In tabular form the originally scheduled dates were given for opening the envelopes which
is extracted hereinbelow :
Seq. No. CSIDC Suppl ier Start Date Expiry Date Envelops
Stage Stage & Time & Time
7. Open 01/01/2016 02/01/2016 Technical

Envelope -A from 10.00 from 17.00 Envelope
(PQ A.M. P.M.
Technical &
Commercial
Detail)
8. Evaluation 01/01/2016 02/01/2016 Technical

and from 10.00 from 17.00 Envelope
Shortlisting A.M. P.M.
of
Envelope-A
9. Open 04/01/2016 04/01/2016 Price Bid

Envelope-C from 10.00 from 17.00 Envelope
(Price Bid) A.M. P.M.
10. Fill Negot 04/01/2016 04/01/2016 Price Bid

iated Rates from 17.01 from 17.02 Envelope
A.M. P.M.
11. Evaluation 04/01/2016 08/01/2016 Price Bid

and from 17.03 from 17.04 Envelope
Shortlisting A.M. P.M.
of
Envelope-C
12. Tender 08/01/2016 12/01/2016 Technical

Award from 17.05 from 17.06 Envelope
A.M. P.M Price Bid
Envelope
22. Tender was to be submitted in three envelopes 'A','B' & 'C'. Envelope 'A' to contain earnest
money. Envelope 'B' to contain technical qualifications/ details required for qualification as per
NIT and other details. Envelope 'C' to contain financial offer.
23. Pre-qualification criteria has been dealt with in Clause 2 of the detailed NIT. The same is
extracted as below:
"2. Pre-Qualification criteria: To be eligible under the contract, the intending tenderer should
meet the following mandatory criteria:
23.1. Financial Criteria
Average Annual Turnover: As per C.G. Govt. PWD Circular No. F21-7/T/2017 dated
02/03/2015 achieved in "any one financial year"a financial turnover in mentioned clauses of
civil engineering construction works) of construction work of at least 60%(Sixty percent)of the
probable amount of contract for which bid has been invited i.e. INR 26.64 Crores(Audited
balance sheet duly signed by CA should be enclosed).
(b) satisfactory completed at least one similar work equal in value of 50% (Fifty per cent)of
the portable amount i.e. INR 22.20 Crores of contract as one date of submission of financial
offer (Audited balance sheet duly signed by CA should be enclosed).
23.2. Technical Criteria
a. For the purpose value of executed works and financial turnover shall be bought to current
costing level by enhancing the actual value of work at the rate of 10% per annum
(compounded annually), calculated from the date of completion to last date of receipt of
applications for tenders.
b. Ongoing project/part project experience shall not be considered for evaluation.
c. For the benefit of the intending tenderers a check list is enclosed at schedule D (Section 1)
for the documents to be submitted alongwith tender.
d. If tenderer qualifies on the basis of experience of one/more components of scope of work,
in such circumstance, a tenderer shall have to employ sub vendor who has experience in
execution of that component, for which tenderer does not have experience. That sub vendor
should have successfully completed work in any central/State Government/PSU in respect of
particular component as below:
(i) One completed work of 80% of the value of that component; OR
(ii) Two completed work of 50% of the value of that component in the central/State
Government Department/ PSU Certificate.
(a) All tenderers should submit the valid registration certificate. Comercial tax certificate,
balance sheet with profit and loss statement for at least three years.
(b) The tenderer shall also submit satisfactory completion certificates in support of each
quoted experience alongwith work order. The satisfactory completion certificate should be
signed by an officer not below the rank of Executive Engineer concerned in case of
Government department or the rank of General Manager in case of Public Sector as the case
may be.
(c) all the documents to be submitted shall be duly notarized."
24. It is apparent from the pre-qualification criteria that for acquiring eligibility the intended
tenderer has to meet the financial criteria as specified in Clause 2.1, technical criteria as per
Clause 2.2(A) and the construction experience in key activities as provided in Clause 2.2 of
doing a contract of requisite nature. Clause 2.2(B) required similar construction work should
have been completed satisfactorily within five years, costing not less than INR 32.52 crores or
two similar works of INR 22.20 crores each and Clause 2.2(C) provided with respect to the
construction experience in key activities requirement for the above or other contracts executed
during the period stipulated in clause 2.1 above, a minimum construction experience in the
key activities as provided in form Schedule D Section I(v) relating to construction experience.
25. Schedule D Section I(v) referred to in the pre-qualification criteria is also extracted below:
"D(v): Construction Experience in key Activities.
Fill up one (1) form per contract.
Note: Attach copies of the work order and satisfied completion certificates in support of each
quoted experience. The completion certificate should be signed by the officer not below the
rank of concerned Executive Engineer in case of Government Department or in the rank of
General manager in case of Public Sector/private sector as the cases may be.
Signature of tenderer Date "
26. Check list was given in Schedule D Section 1(v) for the documents to be submitted along
with tender. The same is extracted hereunder :
Name of the Agency
S.No. Document Details Enclosed as

annexure page No.
from to
Bar cutting machine 1 No.

upto 40 MM dia
Cutting pumps Pan 3 Nos.

Mixer of 2Nos. not
less than 0.5 cum
Plate vibrators of 2Nos.

one ton capacity
Minimum shuttering L =200 mt Ht

material to provided 0.30m L= 200mt Ht
by the contractor 1.00 m
(good quality steel
plates inc steel
propose etc.)
Fixed from or slip 1 No.

from paver
Water Tankers (10- 1 No.

12KL)
Tipper/tru cks 6Nos.
Soil compactor 8-10 1 No.

tones)
Concrete saw 1 No.
Generator (250 1 No.

KVA)
Vibratory roller (8- 1 No

10 Tones)
Motor Grader 1 No
(Clearing/
Spreading/
GSB/100 Cum/
hour)
Mechanical paver 1 No
for CC Road fixed
form
Mechanical paver 1 No
for BT Road
Note: the above check list only provides for those documents which are mandatory for the
tender pre qualification criteria. Tenderers are required to append, other documents also with
the technical tender as required in the detailed NIT or elsewhere in the Part One (CSIDC F-1)"
(Emphasis supplied by us)
27. It is pertinent to mention here that in said list of mandatory plant etc. necessary for pre-
qualification criteria, the Hot Mix Plant is not mentioned. Thus, it was not a pre-requisite to
qualify for opening financial bid.
28. Apart from that, when we peruse the list of minimum plant, equipments and shuttering
provided in clause 51 of the contract document, 18 items have been mentioned in which again
the Hot Mix Plant is not mentioned in the list of "Minimum plant equipment and Shuttering".
The list contained in Clause 51 of tender documents is extracted hereunder:
"Sr. No. Particulars Quantity (As required)
1. Computerised and Fully 1 No. Minimum

Automatic Concrete
batching plant of minimum
30 Cum/ hr capacity.
Cement Silos for 2 (two)

days capacity with direct
feeding and batching
facility.
Hoopers for fine and course

aggregate.
Approved Plasticizer dozing

facility.
Software programme
compatible to make
corrections to batching/ mix
design.
Concrete Pump of required 1 No.

capacity.
Transit Mixer of 6 Cum 4 Nos.

capacity.
MS concrete Piping system

for pumping
2. JCB 2 Nos.
3. Vibrators
a Electric with low noise 3 Nos.
B Petrol (Stand by) 2 Nos.
c Needle Vibrator - 40 2 Nos.
d Needle Vibrator - 65 2 Nos.
4 Bar Bending Machine up to 1 No.

40 mm dia.
5 Bar cutting Machine up to 1 No.

40 mm dia.
6 Curing Pumps 3 Nos.
7 Pan mixer of not less than 2 Nos.

0.5 Cum
8 Plane Vibrators of 1 ton 2 Nos.

capacity
9 Minimum shuttering L=200 mtHt 0.30 m L=200

material to be provided by mtHt 1.00 m
the contractor (Good quality
steel plate's inc steel propos
etc.)
10 Fixed from or slip from 1 No.

paver
11 Water Tankers (10-12 KL) 1 No.
12 Tipper/ Trucks 6 Nos.
13 Soil Compactor (8-10 1 No.

Tones)
14 Concrete Saw 1 No.
15 Generator (250 KVA) 1 No.
16 Vibratory roller (8-10 1 No.

Tones)
17 Motor Grader (Clearing/ 1 No.

Spreading/ GSB/ (100
Cum/hour)
18 Mechanical paver for 1 No.

concrete road & Mechanical
paver for B.T. road
Note: The details referred to herein above are only for the purpose of quantitive assessment.
The specification & qualitative aspect of the shuttering material shall be in accordance with the
BOQ & Technical specification. The details are to be provided within 30 days after award of
contract."
29. In case, any of the aforesaid minimum equipment is not available and certificate is not
appended to the bid, the financial bid was not to be opened.

30. The Hot Mix Plant finds place in different Section V of Schedule D. A bare reading of
Schedule D Section V makes it clear that though it was part of tender form and was in the list
of approved tools and machinery to be used for road work, it was not necessary for the
purpose of technical evaluation at the stage of pre-qualification for opening of financial bid.
31. Considering the aforesaid various clauses, we are of the considered opinion that both the
bidders L-1 and L-2 i.e. M/s. Raipur Construction Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Arcons Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. were technically qualified for opening of their financial bids. The opinion expressed by the
High Court that L-2 was made to be qualified in spite of the fact that it was not having Hot Mix
Plant, thus, cannot be accepted as available ground to disqualify L-2 tenderer. The relevant
clauses of the tender document were not placed for consideration before the High Court as
mentioned by the High Court and at last moment the Hot Mix Plant inclusion in Schedule D
Section V was indicated to it by the disqualified contractor. In our opinion, Hot Mix Plant was
not a mandatory requirement so as to open the financial bid. Thus, the financial bids of the
two tenderers who succeeded at the pre-qualification stage had been rightly opened and
considered. In our opinion, M/s. Raipur Construction was not favoured by qualifying the
disqualified tenderer - M/s. Arcons Infrastructure Pvt Ltd to give the contract to it in
surreptitious method and manner as observed by the High Court. M/s. Arcons Infrastructure
was, in fact, rightly qualified.
32. This Court in Tejas Constructions and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Municipal Council,
Sendhwa and Anr. (2012) 6 SCC 464 2012 Indlaw SC 443 has laid down that when the work is
60 per cent complete, Court should be slow to interfere as retendering would delay the
project. In the absence of malafide or arbitrariness which is not made out in the instant case
as 50 per cent of the work had been completed when the order was passed by the High Court,
hence, no interference was warranted in the present case.
33. Now, we advert to the question of manipulation in the technical evaluation sheet which has
been placed on record by the CSIDC in the form of document R-4/3 and 5/3 and by M/s. Amar
Infrastructure Ltd. as Annexure P-4 in the High Court.
34. The Cyber Crime Cell has observed that some modification was made on 4th July, 2016, in
the technical evaluation bid document P-4, a copy of which was filed by the respondent i.e.
M/s. Amar Infrastructure Limited in the month of April. It was also not reported what change
was made in P-4. There was no such manipulation reported in the document of technical
evaluation filed by the CSIDC in the High Court. We have seen the stand of CSIDC in its reply
to the Writ Application preferred by M/s B.B. Verma which was dismissed by the High Court
after looking into same technical evaluation report. The similar stand had been taken by the
CSIDC and the very same document of technical evaluation had been placed on record in the
aforesaid case as is apparent from the pleadings to which our attention has been drawn by the
learned Attorney General. The document relied upon by the CSIDC had been placed on record
of said case within a week of finalisation of the financial bid. Immediate filing of the same and
taking the stand to the similar effect as has been taken in this matter also vouch for the
correctness of document which has been filed by the CSIDC and there is no manipulation in it.
As per report of the cyber crime cell also there is no manipulation in the document which has
been relied upon by the CSIDC. The question of manipulation as to Hot Mix Plant is of no
consequence as it was not a mandatory criteria for opening of financial bid. The ownership or
otherwise of the hot mix plant was not at all necessary and the plant was not required as
mandatory one for the purpose of pre-qualification stage for opening of financial bid. It was
only in the list of approved plant and equipments to be used under the certification of the
Engineer-in-charge. It appears that the document P-4 which had been filed by M/s. Amar
Infrastructure Ltd. contained the evaluation sheet but it was not as per requirement of
aforesaid various clauses necessary for pre-qualification stage and non-submission of the
information as contended by M/s. Amar Infrastructure Ltd. could not have disqualified M/s.
Arcons Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Thus, what was the necessary requirement
as per criteria for opening of the financial evaluation had been rightly placed before the
Technical Evaluation Committee on 3.3.2016. We have perused the original Minutes and the
technical evaluation document filed by CSIDC which were placed before Technical Evaluation
Committee, and was signed by the Executive Engineer and had been considered by the
Technical Evaluation Committee. The minutes of the Technical Evaluation Committee had also
been signed by the aforesaid three officers. Apart from that in the minutes of Technical
Evaluation Committee meeting dated 3.3.2016, details of qualifications have been mentioned
and that accords with the document of evaluation sheet which has been relied upon by the
CSIDC.
35. In our opinion, as the hot mix plant was not a mandatory requirement so as to open the
financial bid, we decline to go into the submission raised on behalf of the appellants that M/s.
Amar Infrastructure Limited has not disclosed how and when and from whom and by which
process it obtained the document P-4 which is not signed by anybody as the fact remains that
the document which is filed by the respondent also existed in the computer of the CSIDC.
However, it looms in insignificance owing to the conclusions to which we have reached with
respect to the Hot Mix Plant. May be that this document P-4 was also prepared by somebody in
the CSIDC but it was not initialed or signed by anybody. It depicted the position of entire
tender of L-2 but what was mandatory requirement for pre-qualification stage and technical
evaluation was correctly placed before the Technical Evaluation Committee in the form of
document R-4/3 and R-5/3. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the report of
the Cyber Crime Cell is of no consequence with respect to pre-qualification criteria and opening
of financial bids, since it is not disputed that successful tenderer L-1 fulfilled all conditions and
had Hot Mix Plant also.
36. There was no manipulation in the mandatory requirements and may be that P-4 was
prepared but that was of no consequence as deficiency of Hot Mix Plant, even if placed before
Committee, would not have tilted the balance in favour of the respondent M/s. Amar
Infrastructure Limited. The Committee on that basis could not have disqualified the L-2
tenderer.
37. Coming to the submission raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that M/s. Anil
Buildcon (I) Pvt. Ltd. was disqualified for not possessing concrete paver as such L-2 tenderer
M/s. Arcons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. also ought to have been disqualified for deficiency of Hot
Mix Plant, we are unable to accept the submission as concrete paver was mentioned in the list
of mandatory plant and equipment for pre-qualification stage so as to open financial bid. Thus,
this submission is found to be baseless. M/s Anil Buildcon (I) Pvt. Ltd. was rightly disqualified.
38. We also find that M/s. Amar Infrastructure Ltd. itself was disqualified and it had not
questioned the qualification of the successful bidder but that of L-2 bidder - M/s. Arcons
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on ground that it was not qualified and its financial bid had been
illegally opened. It was purely a fight between the rival tenderers involving no element of
public interest. It was the respondent who was trying to cater to its business interest to ensure
retendering by seeking disqualification of L-2 tenderer M/s. Arcons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to
whom contract had not been given. The Court has to be loath in such matter to make
interference.
39. Resultantly, we find that there was no merit in the writ petition filed by the respondent in
the High Court. Thus, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned judgment, order
and directions passed by the High Court.
The appeals are allowed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred.
Appeals allowed

WLDoc 17-8-14 3 - 30 (PM)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

WLDoc 17-8-14 3 - 30 (PM)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WLDoc 17-8-14 3 - 30 (PM)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

14/08/2017 Delivery | Westlaw India

Westlaw India Delivery Summary

Request made by : IP USER NOVUS

Client ID: inbharati-1

© 2017 Thomson Reuters South Asia Private Limited

Jalaluddin v State of Uttar Pradesh

Bench Bharat Bhushan, Shailendra Kumar Agrawal

Where Reported 2017 Indlaw ALL 340

Case Digest Subject: Criminal; Practice & Procedure

All Cases Cited Referred

Legislation Cited Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

© 2015 Thomson Reuters South Asia Private Limited

Allahabad High Court

State of Uttar Pradesh

Case No : Criminal Appeal No. 6116 of 2003

in order to show the purpose was prejudicial to safety of the country.

Louis Vuitton v Gaurav Bhatia and others

Bench Deepa Sharma

Where Reported 2017 Indlaw DEL 1464

Case Digest Subject: Intellectual Property

by them. No damages are granted. Suit disposed of.

© 2015 Thomson Reuters South Asia Private Limited

Delhi High Court

Gaurav Bhatia and others

Case No : CS(COMM) 89/2017 and IA Nos. 13470/2014 & 21815/2014

The Order of the Court was as follows :

Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and another

Bench Arun Mishra, Amitava Roy

Case Digest Subject: Contract & Commercial

All Cases Cited Relied On

© 2015 Thomson Reuters South Asia Private Limited

Supreme Court of India

Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and another

Amar Infrastructure Limited and others

The Order of the Court was as follows :

(emphasis added by us)

"SUBMISSION OF TENDER DOCUMENTS 1. Tender documents to be submitted in

2. For technical qualification, eligibility

final submission of document. Any physical

7. Open 01/01/2016 02/01/2016 Technical

8. Evaluation 01/01/2016 02/01/2016 Technical

9. Open 04/01/2016 04/01/2016 Price Bid

10. Fill Negot 04/01/2016 04/01/2016 Price Bid

11. Evaluation 04/01/2016 08/01/2016 Price Bid

12. Tender 08/01/2016 12/01/2016 Technical

S.No. Document Details Enclosed as

Bar cutting machine 1 No.

Cutting pumps Pan 3 Nos.

Plate vibrators of 2Nos.

Minimum shuttering L =200 mt Ht

Fixed from or slip 1 No.

Water Tankers (10- 1 No.

Tipper/tru cks 6Nos.

Soil compactor 8-10 1 No.

Concrete saw 1 No.

Generator (250 1 No.

Vibratory roller (8- 1 No

"Sr. No. Particulars Quantity (As required)