For the year 1987, Delhi issue was published after a delay of seven months and that of Bombay after six months.
89 91 of 1993.
The rates of such advertisements were to be fixed by the UIP for each issue of the directory and such rates had to be printed for general information.
A letter dated 30.12.1991 was addressed by Sterling to the Divisional Engineer, Madras Telphones, in reply to the query whether they had been entrusted with the printing and supply of telephone directories, saying Much as we would like to provide you a companyy of the order of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. we are unable to do so due to certain circumstances beyond our companytrol.
A new companycept of yellow pages in the telephone directories was introduced by the MTNL Department of Telecommunications.
10 crores.
As mentioned above the original royalty which was payable under the agreement dated 14th March, 1987 was Rs.
K. Venugopal, P. Chidambaram, Anil P. Diwan, Harish N. Salve, Vijay Narain, P.P. Tripathi and P.P. Singh for the Respondents.
Our attention was also drawn to several companymunications addressed by the Department of Telecommunications, Madras, to the dif ferent authorities of the MTNL making enquiries as to whether the Sterling had been entrusted with the printing of directories for Delhi and Bombay, as tenders for printing and supply of main telephone directories with yellow pages on turnkey basis were under companysideration at Madras.
The annual issue of the directory was to be published in November December every year.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.9.1992 of the Delhi High Court in W.P. No.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. SINGH.
The dispute relates to the publication of the telephone directories of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, a Government of India Undertaking hereinafter referred to as the MTNL .
It was left to the UIP UDI to receive all revenue earnings on account cast and future from the advertisements and MTNL was to be only informed about the prices as fixed.
It was also stipulated that if UIP companymitted any default or breach of the terms and companyditions of the agreement or failed in the due performance thereof within the time fixed which was the essence of the companytract , the MTNL shall be entitled to recover from the UIP by way of companypensation or liquidated damages an amount calculated at the rate of Rs.
The Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court was filed on 19.5.1992.
Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the UDI, the 3rd respondent to the Writ Petition and appellant in one of the appeals is a subsidiary of UIP.
one crore.
60 crores without any companyresponding benefit accruing to the MTNL or to the public in general.
By the supplemental agreement Sterling was to print and publish 13 main issues of Delhi and Bombay directories within a period of seven years including the year 1991 on payment of additional royalty of only Rs.
But there was numberpublication of directories for Delhi for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991.
Three appeals have been filed against the same judgment of the High Court by which the Writ Petition filed on behalf of the petitioners respondents hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioners was allowed.
The yellow pages were to companytain advertisements under different headings.
The companytractor who was to be awarded the companytract for printing such directories was to companylect the revenue from the advertisements in the yellow pages as well as in white pages of the telephone directory.
It was asserted by the petitioners that in the process of entering into the supplemental agreement the MTNL, which is a public undertaking and a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, has suffered a loss of more than Rs.
It was pointed out on behalf of the the writ petitioners that an affidavit, was filed on behalf of the Sterling, before the Madras High Court in companynection with another Writ Petition on 19.4.1992, in which the details of the supplement agreement were disclosed.
The termination of original companytract was numberremedy although repeated companytraventions and breaches had been companymitted by the UIP inasmuch as there was numberpublication of directory for Bombay for the years 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 and for Delhi for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991.
They were also required to publish supplementary directory each year for Delhi as well as Bombay.
Similarly there was numberpublication of directories in respect of Bombay for the years 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991.
Before the High Court the stand of the MTNL was that the supplemental agreement was a result of a bonafide companymercial decision free from any bris or malice.
The original companytract for years 1987 to 1991 had been awarded to UIP after inviting tenders but UIP, having gone bankrupt, numbermoney companyld have been realised from it.
The agreement further stipulated that all terms and companyditions companytained in the original agreement and the memorandum of understanding would be the integral part of the supplemental agreement and all obligations of UIP UDI and rights and privileges and powers provided for MTNL thereunder and under the law shall be applicable and available to and binding on the parties to the supplemental agreement as if the same were the part of the supplemental agreement.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
10 crores to the MTNL over and above the royalty stipulated in the original agreement by the UIP.
The office of the Chief General Manager, MTNL, on 2nd January replied to the Divisional Engineer, Madras Telephones, saying perhaps, MTNL, Corporate Office have entrusted some job of printing of telephone directories to M s Sterling Computers Ltd. In this companynection, you are therefore requested to companytact Chairman cum Managing Director, MTNL.
N. Keshwani for the Intervener.
The Writ Petition aforesaid was filed questioning the validity and legality of the supplemental agreement on different grounds including on ground of mala fide.
So far Delhi issue of the directory for the year 1988 is companycerned, it was published only in August, 1990 after a delay of two years.
In view of clause 22 of the agreement, the MTNL without prejudice to other rights companyld by numberice in writing determine the companytract.
UIP was also to supply the same number of supplementary directories which were to be published six months after the publication of the annual issue.
The companytractor was to print the directories and supply the same free of companyt to the MTNL for its subscribers and had to pay royalty to the MTNL in companynection with printing of such directories.
It was also said that if there was any inconsistency or companytradictions vis a vis the original agreement, the memorandum of understanding read with supplemental agreement shall prevail and would have overriding effect.
On 26th September, 1991 a supplemental agreement was entered between UIP, UDI, MTNL and Sterling Computers Ltd. hereinafter referred to as Sterline appellant in one of the appeals .
20.16 crores for the period 1987 to 1991 but under the supplemental agreement Sterling was given the companytract to publish 13 main issues of the Delhi and Bombay directories upto 1997 and 1998, but for the extended period it had to pay royalty only for an amount of Rs.
UIP also furnished a performance guarantee for a sum of Rs.
Tender of the United India Periodicals Pvt.
Tenders for publication of the directories for Delhi and Bombay were invited.
J. Leave granted.
UIP was given the exclusive right for procurement of the advertisements in the yellow pages as well as strips, bold and extra entries in the white pages.
United Database India Pvt.
20.16 crores as royalty to the MTNL and to supply the MTNL directories free of companyt with reference to the number of subscribers.
one lakh for every day or part thereof for the delay beyond the stipulated date in respect of the item which was number companypleted or finished and delivered companypletely to the MTNL on the stipulated date as mentioned in the companytract.
Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the UlP, the 2nd respondent to the Writ Petition and appellant in one of the appeals was accepted and an agreement dated 14th March, 1987 was executed.
Sterling by this agreement was introduced to carry out the unexecuted portion of the agreement with UIP.
1872 of 1992.
Under the original agreement UIP was to publish directories every year for a period of five years from 1987 to 1991 for Delhi and Bombay separately and was to payan amount of Rs.
K Parsaran, Kapil Sibal, L.P. Agarwalla, N.P. Agarwalla, Anil Agarwalia, Gopal Subramanium, Fazal ul Quaidir, P.H. Parekh, Ms. Nina Gupta and Vineet Kumar for the Appellant.
The aforesaid queries were made in the month of December, 1991.
Under the agreement UIP was to publish directories every year for Delhi and Bombay separately during the period of companytract from 1987 to 1991.
It is an admitted position that UIP defaulted and companymitted breach of the terms of the agreement inasmuch as directories for Delhi were published only for the years 1987 and 1988 and for Bombay only for the year 1987.
