Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
Batta R.K. Kanade V.M., JJ.
Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. .... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 807 of 1988, decided on 20-12-2002.
Advocates appeared :
V.R. Manohar, for petitioner.
Dhote, A.G.P., for respondents.
TENDER NOTICE - REFUND OF EARNEST MONEY - CLAUSE 7, CLAUSE 5(iv), CLAUSE 5(v) - The court considered the interpretation of the conditions in the tender notice and concluded that the petitioner was entitled to withdraw its offer and ask for a refund of the earnest money as per the terms and conditions of the tender notice. The court held that there was no concluded contract between the parties and the petitioner was entitled to get its earnest money back. The court also awarded interest at 6% p.a. from the date of withdrawal of the offer till the date of payment of the earnest money.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner submitted tenders in response to a tender notice for sale of Bamboo Units. The final sale result was not declared within the stipulated period, and the petitioner withdrew their offer and requested a refund of the earnest money. The respondents rejected the request, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no concluded contract between the parties, and the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the earnest money. The court also awarded interest at 6% p.a. from the date of withdrawal of the offer till the date of payment of the earnest money.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the conditions in the tender notice and whether the petitioner was entitled to withdraw its offer and claim a refund of the earnest money.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the offer under the tender was valid for a specific period, and the petitioner had the right to withdraw its bid before the conclusion of the contract. The court also awarded interest at 6% p.a. from the date of withdrawal of the offer till the date of payment of the earnest money.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned communications were quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to refund the earnest money deposit with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of withdrawal of the offer till the date of payment of the earnest money.
2. Respondent No. 2 had issued a Tender Notice dated 8-6-1987 for sale of Bamboo Units in Vadasa (Unit No. 7) and Gadchiroli (Unit Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 14). The respondent No. 3 had also issued a tender sale notice in respect of Bhamragarh (Unit No. 5) Chandrapur Circle for the same purpose. The terms and conditions of both the tender notices were identical. The tender was to be submitted in the prescribed form on or before 15-7-1987 and sealed tenders received from the bidders were to be opened on the same day and tenderers were to pay earnest money deposit @ 10% of the total royalty to be worked out on the basis of the total estimated yield of that Bamboo Unit. It was mentioned in the Tender Notice that the sealed tender should be accompanied with the treasury challan or demand draft indicating that earnest money has been deposited. It was further stated in the tender notice that in case of successful tenderers, the earnest money deposit would automatically stands appropriated towards the security deposit which is required to be furnished. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the conditions stipulated in the tender after the submission of the tender, the offer would be considered valid for the period of 45 days from the date of the tender sale.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the tender notices issued by the respondents 2 and 3 the petitioner submitted tenders on 15-7-1987 and before submitting the tender notice the petitioner had deposited the earnest money as required by the tender notice.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Clause 7 of the tender, the final sale result was to be declared within 30 days for getting approval of the Competent Authority and since respondents 2 and 3 did not declare the final sale result even after the expiry of 30 days from the date of opening of the tender i.e. 15-7-1987, the petitioner sent a telegram on 15-8-1987 to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in which is was stated that since the final sale had not been declared within 30 days as per Clause 7 of the tender notice, the petitioner had withdrawn their offer and requested for return of the earnest money deposit. The petitioner also addressed letters to the respondents 2 and 3 on the same date, in which message and telegram which had been sent earlier have been quoted.
5. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 17-8-1987 the petitioner addressed another communication reiterating their stand of withdrawing their offer and requesting for refund of the earnest money. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner did not receive any reply to the telegram which was sent on 15-8-1987 or to the letters sent on the same day addressed to the respondent No. 2 and 3 and also to the communication dated 17-8-1987 which was addressed to respondents 2 and 3. It is the case of petitioner that, therefore on 2-9-1987 letter was addressed to the respondent No. 2 stating therein that even after expiry of 45 days on 29-8-1987 the final results had not been declared and, therefore, earned money deposited by the petitioner should be refunded. It is the case of the petitioner that again on 16-9-1987 they addressed letters to respondents 2 and 3 stating therein that final sale result had not been declared even after the expiry of 45 days and the petitioner had already withdrawn the offer and, therefore, the petitioner was entitle
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
