Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SMITA DAS DE
Manoj Kumar Verma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition initiation and facts of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. bid cancellation and subsequent actions by railway authorities. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. petitioner's argument regarding bid forfeiture. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. respondent's defense and procedural compliance. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. court's analysis on disqualification rationale. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. clarification on bidding process and contract validity. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 39) |
| 7. court's conclusion and directive on emd. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
Smita Das De, J.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in WPA No. 13131 of 2025, challenging inter alia, the rejection of a bid dated May 8, 2025 for leasing under lot No 12381-SLR-R1-HWH-NDLS-25-1 coupled with forfeiture of the earnest money to the tune of Rs. 7,45,321/-
2. Apropo, the facts made out in the ‘Writ Petition’ is that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of transportation of goods of various natures under the name and style of ‘Vishal Enterprise’. The petitioner has submitted his bid and became the highest bidder pursuant to a tender not
Forfeiture of Earnest Money requires intent to mislead; accidental clerical errors should not disqualify bidders nor invoke punitive measures, affirming principles of natural justice.
A successful bidder cannot be penalized for inadvertent documentation errors, and forfeiture of earnest money requires proof of intent to mislead, reflecting principles of natural justice.
Forfeiture of bid security must be explicitly stipulated in the contract terms, and failure to bid higher does not equate to withdrawal from the bidding process.
The main legal point established is that in contractual matters, the court may intervene to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism by the government bodies, especially if the actions violate the equalit....
A bidder cannot claim EMD refund due to an inadvertent error in a bid amount when sufficient safeguards exist in the bidding process to prevent such mistakes.
Forfeiture of earnest money is valid before contract execution if tenderer provides false information, without invoking Sections 73 and 74 of the Contract Act.
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
