Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Lord Shiva Enterprises & Anr vs The Union Of India & Ors on 3 July, 2026
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
03.07.2026
Court No. 12
Item No. 05
Sandip
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
M.A.T. 919 of 2026
IA No : CAN 1 of 2026
M/s. Lord Shiva Enterprises & Anr.
-Versus-
The Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay,
Ms. Utsa Podder,
Ms. Sneha Sarkar
.....for the appellants.
Mr. Biswanath Chatterjee,
Ms. Sayonee Boral,
Mr. Sobhan Kr. Poithak
....for the respondent nos. 2 & 3.
1) The appeal arises out of an order dated
May 14, 2026, passed in W.P.A. 11099 of 2026.
2) By the order impugned, the learned Court
found that balance of convenience and
inconvenience, did not tilt in favour of the
appellants, so as to warrant an interim
protection.
3) His Lordship was of the, prima facie, view
that, in the absence of any illegality or
arbitrariness in the action of the tendering
authority, the interim protection sought for in
the writ petition could not be granted.
4) The writ petition was preferred by the
appellants, being aggrieved by a decision dated
April 15, 2026, by which the contract of the
appellants with the respondent no. 2 had been
terminated on the ground that the change of
names/registrations of the tank trucks had not
been obtained within 120 days from the date of
the receipt of the LOA by the appellants.
2
Further, a sum of Rs. 2 toward EMD was also
forfeited.
5) The contract was entered into between the
appellants and the respondent no. 2 (HPCL).
The letter of acceptance was issued on August
21, 2025. The vehicles/tank truck which were
involved, were not owned by the appellants.
HPCL permitted the appellants to participate in
the tender process, under the ATS framework.
The clause provided that a person who had an
agreement for sale with a truck owner, could
participate in the tender process. If the bid was
accepted by the tendering authority, the
transfer of the vehicles ought to be effected
within four months from the issuance of letter
of acceptance. The appellants had time till
December 19, 2025 to complete the formalities
with regard to registration and transfer of the
tank truck in the name of the appellants. This
requirement was a part of the tender condition
and had been provided under Clause 5 of the
corrigendum 3. The same is quoted below:-
“Clause 5 of the Corrigendum No. 3
published on April 4, 2025. The clause is
quoted below:-
“In case the bidder fails to submit the
required documents with change of
name, etc. within 4 months of issue of
LOI, suitable penal action shall be
taken, which may include EMD
forfeiture, caution money forfeiture,
termination of order of such TTs and
blacklisting of such TTs. Under no
circumstances will the
abovementioned timeline be extended.
In such cases, the contracting
Corporation reserves the right and
shall be at liberty to induct TTs as per
the methodology mentioned in the
tender to fulfil the shortfall arising
thereof.”
3
6) A show cause notice was issued to the
appellants on February 23, 2026. The tank
truck was not put to use thereafter. When the
authority did not proceed with the show cause
notice, a writ petition was filed. While disposing
of the writ petition, another learned single
Judge directed HPCL to decide the matter on
the basis of the reply filed by the appellants. At
that juncture, the appellants were not
protected by any interim order. Subsequently,
the order of termination of the contract was
passed and the writ petition was filed, the EMD
was forfeited. His Lordship was of the view that,
the actions of the authorities, prima facie, did
not indicate any arbitrariness and mala fide
intent.
7) Upon taking note of the sequence of
events and the submissions made by the
respective parties, His Lordship was of the view
that a speaking order had been passed by the
authority. The principles of natural justice were
followed. Adequate opportunity was granted to
the appellants to put forward their case. Thus,
His Lordship held that, the question whether
the termination was illegal or contrary to the
terms and conditions of the contract, or
whether HPCL’s use of the tank truck beyond,
120 days, would amount to waiver of clause 5
of corrigendum 3, would be decided at the final
hearing of the writ petition.
8) Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, learned
advocate for the appellants relies on a decision
of the Division Bench presided by one of us
(Shampa Sarkar, J.), in support of the
contention that, an interim protection should
4
be given to the appellants to continue with the
contract, with a further direction upon HPCL to
allow the tank trucks of the appellants to
continue operation.
9) We are of the view that, the facts which
led to the order on May 21, 2026 in MAT 878 of
2026, do not squarely apply here. In that
matter, IOCL had continued to utilize the tank
trucks even during the pendency of the show
cause notice and the writ court also allowed the
trucks to continue their operation. Thus, the
Division Bench, upon balancing the
convenience and inconvenience of the parties
held that, the appellants therein were entitled
to an interim protection for four weeks, so that
the business would not suffer.
10) The Bench held that, in the event IOCL
was permitted to stop utilization of the tank
trucks of the appellants, IOCL would have to
induct other bidders to complete the work.
Whereas, if the appellants were allowed to
continue the work and be granted a month’s
time to approach the appropriate forum for a
protective order, in view of the agreed forum of
an arbitral tribunal, IOCL would not suffer any
loss.
11) In this case, HPCL stopped utilizing the
vehicle from February 2023. Four months have
elapsed since then. Directing HPCL to use the
tank truck of the appellants, would amount to
putting the clock back. This cannot be
permitted, because HPCL must have made an
interim arrangement to procure tank trucks
from third parties.
12) Under such circumstances, the prayer
made by Mr. Bandopadhyay that the appellants
5
may be allowed to continue with their business
for a period of four weeks, is not accepted by
us. Moreover, with regard to the prayer before
the learned writ Court for stay of the
termination, we are of the view that, the
termination order had taken effect, and as
such, the validity of the decision of the
authority in terminating the contract, must be
decided by the writ Court upon exchange of
affidavits.
13) Time to file the opposition is extended by a
period of three weeks. Reply within one week
thereafter. Liberty to mention for urgent
hearing of the matter.
14) Accordingly, the appeal and the connected
application are disposed of.
15) The disposal of the appeal without any
interference, will not prevent the appellants
from raising all the questions which have been
raised in this appeal. All points are left open to
be decided by the writ Court.
16) Urgent photostat certified copy of the
order, if applied for, be given to the parties,
upon usual undertakings.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
(Smita Das De, J.)
