Name : Amjad Ali Ansari
Roll No : 15-F-359
Code : 0402115
Section : MFM II
Topic : Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority of India and Ors.
Background
In this case, International Airport Authority of Bombay issued a notice on 3rd January 1977 for inviting tenders for putting up and running a 2nd class restaurant and two snack bars at the Airport. The notice stated inviting tender of registered 2nd class hoteliers having at least 5 years’ experience for putting up and running a 2nd class restaurant and two snack bars at the Bombay Airport for a period of 3 years. Out of the six tenders received only the tender …show more content…
The 4th respondent was asked to provide the documentary evidence whether they were registered 2nd class hotelier’s having at least 5 years’ experience. A letter was made by 4th respondent stated that they had considerable experience of catering for various reputed commercial houses, clubs, messes and banks and that they had Eating Houses Catering Establishment (Canteen) Licence. Satisfied with the information given by the 4th respondents, the 1st respondent accepted their tender. The 4th respondents also got prepared furniture, counters and showcases as also uniforms for the staff, purchased inter alia deep freezers, water coolers, electrical appliances, ice-cream cabinets, espresso coffee machines, crockery, cutlery and other articles and things and also engaged the necessary staff for the purpose of running the restaurant. But the 1st respondent could not hand over possession of the requisite sites to the 4th respondents, since A. S. Irani was running his restaurant and snack bars on these sites under a previous contract with the 1st respondent and though that contract had …show more content…
But it was rejected. Immediately thereafter, on the same day, the 1st respondent handed over possession of two different sites to the 4th respondents and the 4th respondents proceeded to set up snack bars on the two sites and started a business of catering at the two snack bars. The 1st respondent was constrained to file suit against A. S. Irani in the City Civil Court at Bombay and in that suit, an injunction was obtained by the 1st respondent restraining A. S. Irani from running or conducting the restaurant and the snack bars or from entering the premises save and except for winding up the restaurant and the snack bars. A. S. Irani preferred an appeal against the order granting the injunction, but the appeal was rejected and ultimately a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court was also turned down on 31st July, 1978. A. S. Irani filed another suit in the City Civil Court, Bombay seeking a mandatory injunction for removal of the two snack bars put up by the 4th respondents. This was one more attempt by A. S. Irani to prevent the 4th respondents from obtaining the benefit of the contract awarded to them by the 1st respondent. He,
Roll No : 15-F-359
Code : 0402115
Section : MFM II
Topic : Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority of India and Ors.
Background
In this case, International Airport Authority of Bombay issued a notice on 3rd January 1977 for inviting tenders for putting up and running a 2nd class restaurant and two snack bars at the Airport. The notice stated inviting tender of registered 2nd class hoteliers having at least 5 years’ experience for putting up and running a 2nd class restaurant and two snack bars at the Bombay Airport for a period of 3 years. Out of the six tenders received only the tender …show more content…
The 4th respondent was asked to provide the documentary evidence whether they were registered 2nd class hotelier’s having at least 5 years’ experience. A letter was made by 4th respondent stated that they had considerable experience of catering for various reputed commercial houses, clubs, messes and banks and that they had Eating Houses Catering Establishment (Canteen) Licence. Satisfied with the information given by the 4th respondents, the 1st respondent accepted their tender. The 4th respondents also got prepared furniture, counters and showcases as also uniforms for the staff, purchased inter alia deep freezers, water coolers, electrical appliances, ice-cream cabinets, espresso coffee machines, crockery, cutlery and other articles and things and also engaged the necessary staff for the purpose of running the restaurant. But the 1st respondent could not hand over possession of the requisite sites to the 4th respondents, since A. S. Irani was running his restaurant and snack bars on these sites under a previous contract with the 1st respondent and though that contract had …show more content…
But it was rejected. Immediately thereafter, on the same day, the 1st respondent handed over possession of two different sites to the 4th respondents and the 4th respondents proceeded to set up snack bars on the two sites and started a business of catering at the two snack bars. The 1st respondent was constrained to file suit against A. S. Irani in the City Civil Court at Bombay and in that suit, an injunction was obtained by the 1st respondent restraining A. S. Irani from running or conducting the restaurant and the snack bars or from entering the premises save and except for winding up the restaurant and the snack bars. A. S. Irani preferred an appeal against the order granting the injunction, but the appeal was rejected and ultimately a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court was also turned down on 31st July, 1978. A. S. Irani filed another suit in the City Civil Court, Bombay seeking a mandatory injunction for removal of the two snack bars put up by the 4th respondents. This was one more attempt by A. S. Irani to prevent the 4th respondents from obtaining the benefit of the contract awarded to them by the 1st respondent. He,