Begin typing your search...

    HC dismisses appeal challenging 47th Indian Tourist and Industrial Fair

    The first division bench, headed by Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy passed the orders on an appeal filed by one private firm represented by its representative G Sivanarayanan.

    HC dismisses appeal challenging 47th Indian Tourist and Industrial Fair
    X
    Madras High Court

    CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has upheld an order of a single judge dismissing a petition filed for a direction to the state tourism department not to stall the 47th Indian Tourist and International Fair, which was scheduled to be held at Island Grounds, Chennai.

    The first division bench, headed by Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy passed the orders on an appeal filed by one private firm represented by its representative G Sivanarayanan.

    The appellant submitted that though his company submitted the technical bid and financial bid for the tender proceedings, his bids were not accepted by the respondents.

    He further charged that the Tamil Nadu tourism department rejected his bid on the ground that his firm has to pay Rs.3.06 lakhs dues to the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation.

    “The government sent a notice in August 2019 to settle the dues. It is also noted that the government settled us Rs.8.42 lakhs which were kept pending by the government. If we have the due payable to the government, the respondents could have deducted it while they were paying Rs.8.42 lakhs,” the appellant’s counsel argued.

    Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram said that the appellant was pointing out two different transactions. According to him, the first notice was issued in August 2019 and further reminders were made in June and July 2020.

    Recording the submissions, the judges noted that the original demand was raised in the year 2019, and even after the settlement of the other account, in the year 2020 also, the second respondent – TTDC has been persisting with the demand.

    “When the appellant has to participate in the tender, knowing the condition, it ought to have either paid the amount or challenged the demand in the manner known to law. Just by disputing the dues, it cannot contend that there are no dues,” the bench noted and dismissed the appeal.

    Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!

    Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!

    Click here for iOS

    Click here for Android

    DTNEXT Bureau
    Next Story