KARACHI, Dec 21: Justice Zahid Kurban Alavi of the Sindh High Court has dismissed a 10-million-rupee suit by two highest but rejected bidders for a bank property with special compensatory cost of Rs50,000 to the defendant bank.

Plaintiffs Usman Billoo and Muhammad Jameel submitted in their plaint that they jointly offered the highest amount of Rs25,786,786 on December 24, 1998, for plot No 5/47 at Alam Market on Saleh Muhammad Street, Karachi, sold by United Bank Limited through public auction advertised in two leading newspapers. The offer was accompanied by a pay order in the sum of Rs1,500,000 as required.

Three other parties which participated in the auction offered much less yet their highest bid was rejected on January 1, 1999, without assigning any reason. They said they suffered business losses on account of the rejection, which was prompted by their refusal to pay illegal gratification to the bank’s property disposal committee. They sought a declaration in their favour as rightful bidders/purchasers and a restraint order against the disposal of the property pending hearing of their suit. In the alternative, they sought Rs10 million in damages from the defendant bank.

Contesting the suit on behalf of the UBL, Advocate Nafees Siddiqui submitted that the advertisement or the auction notice in response to which the plaintiffs offered their bids contained a categorical and unequivocal clause saying that the bank reserved the right to reject any offer, including the highest, without assigning any reason whatsoever. The bank intimated its rejection of the plaintiffs’ offer within a week and no loss could possibly have accrued to them due to the rejection of their bid. No bribe was demanded by any bank official for the acceptance of the bid, he said. In fact, a big loss has been suffered by the bank on account of the three-year old interim order restraining it from dealing with its property.

Justice Alavi, who heard the arguments on Friday, observed in his order the same day that “the suit was frivolous, vexatious and filed by the plaintiffs only to cause harassment to the bank and its officers.” It was not in the body of their plaint but at the stage of evidence that the plaintiffs alleged demand of commission by bank officials. Dismissing the suit, he awarded Rs50,000 to the defendant bank as special compensatory cost.