You’ve got spam! Technical flaw not fault of sender, says Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has said that if an e-mail goes into the spam folder and the receiving company does not see it, it can’t be held as the fault of the sender but is a technical flaw in the mail system of the receiving company, which, it is their responsibility to rectify.
A division bench of Justice Manmohan Singh and Justice R V Easwar made the observation while hearing a petition of a multinational company, incorporated in Sweden. The company has claimed to be a worldwide vehicle inspection industry group with the sole focus on vehicle testing and diagnostics. It had approached the High Court on the ground that the government had sent it an e-mail regarding some clarifications on its bidding in a tender in 2012 to the general e-mail address of the company, instead of the e-mail addresses of the relevant persons provided by it.
It claimed that the e-mail went into the spam folder, as a result of which, the company did not see it for few days and when it discovered the mail, it sent the required documents, but the government refused to accept it on the basis that clarifications had been delayed.
The government counsel said that the e-mail was sent to one of the addresses the company had given and it was clearly instructed in the bidding form to check all e-mail addresses vigilantly and regularly.
Dismissing the petition, the court said, '... this would mean that the petitioner is stopped from insisting that the respondent (government) ought to have sent the e-mail to a particular e-mail address when the application form clearly instructs the petitioner to remain vigilant about all e-mail addresses. Under these circumstances, we do not find any mistake or default on the part of the respondent and as such no infirmity in the impugned order.'
The court said that it did not agree with the submission of the counsel of the petitioner that the e-mail had gone into the spam folder and could not be discovered due to the fault of the respondent and thus resulted in belated reply. It said that it was upon the petitioner to not take the process of bidding lightly by checking its e-mail properly and thoroughly.
A division bench of Justice Manmohan Singh and Justice R V Easwar made the observation while hearing a petition of a multinational company, incorporated in Sweden. The company has claimed to be a worldwide vehicle inspection industry group with the sole focus on vehicle testing and diagnostics. It had approached the High Court on the ground that the government had sent it an e-mail regarding some clarifications on its bidding in a tender in 2012 to the general e-mail address of the company, instead of the e-mail addresses of the relevant persons provided by it.
It claimed that the e-mail went into the spam folder, as a result of which, the company did not see it for few days and when it discovered the mail, it sent the required documents, but the government refused to accept it on the basis that clarifications had been delayed.
The government counsel said that the e-mail was sent to one of the addresses the company had given and it was clearly instructed in the bidding form to check all e-mail addresses vigilantly and regularly.
Dismissing the petition, the court said, '... this would mean that the petitioner is stopped from insisting that the respondent (government) ought to have sent the e-mail to a particular e-mail address when the application form clearly instructs the petitioner to remain vigilant about all e-mail addresses. Under these circumstances, we do not find any mistake or default on the part of the respondent and as such no infirmity in the impugned order.'
The court said that it did not agree with the submission of the counsel of the petitioner that the e-mail had gone into the spam folder and could not be discovered due to the fault of the respondent and thus resulted in belated reply. It said that it was upon the petitioner to not take the process of bidding lightly by checking its e-mail properly and thoroughly.