IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
M/S Office Equipment - Appellant
Versus
M/S Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. - Respondent
FAO No. 50 of 2007
Decided on : 08-08-2017
Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Contract Performance Guarantee - Clauses 11, 16.7, 17.1, 23, 33, 37 - The court analyzed the clauses of the contract and held that the contract was complete upon the issuance of the Letter of Award by the respondent. The court found that the appellant's attempt to unilaterally modify the contract terms was not permissible under the contract, justifying the respondent's encashment of the bid earnest money bank guarantee.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant impugned the judgment of the court below, which set aside the Arbitrator's award directing refund of the bid guarantee amount. The respondent had invited tenders for interior and allied works, and the appellant submitted a bid with a bank guarantee. After negotiations, the respondent issued a Letter of Award, but the appellant sought to modify the terms, leading to disputes and arbitration proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contract was complete upon the issuance of the Letter of Award, and the appellant's attempt to unilaterally modify the contract terms was impermissible. The court held that the respondent was justified in encashing the bid earnest money bank guarantee due to the appellant's failure to sign the contract and furnish a performance guarantee within the specified period.
Issues: (i) Justification of the respondent's encashment of the earnest money bank guarantee; (ii) Determination of the contract conclusion date; (iii) Legality of the encashment in relation to the contract conclusion date; (iv) Interpretation of bid modification and its impact on the bid earnest money bank guarantee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the contract clauses, the timing of contract conclusion, and the impermissibility of unilateral bid modification. The court also emphasized the legal principle that an absolute acceptance of an unconditional offer results in a binding contract.
Final Decision: The court upheld the judgment of the court below, setting aside the Arbitrator's award and dismissing the appeal.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
1. By this first appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), the appellant/tenderer impugns the judgment of the court below dated 16.12.2006 by which the court below has allowed the objections filed by the respondent herein and set aside the Award dated 28.1.2005 of the sole Arbitrator which had directed refund of Rs.11,10,000/- being the bid guarantee amount and which was with the respondent/objector on account of encashment of the bank guarantee given as bid guarantee.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent had invited tenders for the purpose of interior and other allied works at its office complex. Tenderers were required to furnish a bid guarantee of Rs.11,10,000/- and which was to remain valid for a period of 30 days beyond the validity period of the bid. Appellant submitted its bid on 19.9.2001 along with the earnest money deposit in the form of bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.11,10,000/-. Bids were opened on the same date i.e 19.9.2001 and the appellant was found to be the successful bidder. Thereafter, negotiations took place between the parties, inasmuch as, as per the bid documents period of completion of the contract was 15 months but the respondent wanted to reduce this period to 12 months. Parties therefore entered into a written Memorandum of Meeting dated 5.12.2001 reducing the completion period as per the bid documents of 15 months to 12 months. Appellant however on 13.12.2001 sent its letter again seeking 15 months time instead of 12 months. Appellant also put two other conditions of rates being firm only for a stipulated period of 15 months and that the electrical work would not be carried out by the agency of the respondent but by the agency of the appellant. This letter dated 13.12.2001 of the appellant reads as under:-
“Chief Manager (Case taken up today-NR1)
M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
B 9, Qutub Institutional Area,
Katwaria Sarai,
New Delhi 110016
Sub: Interior and other Allied works for proposed office Complex at Sector 29, Gurgaon,
Specification No:- Package-H (Part A) C-12204-C-902-3
Dear Sir,
Thanks for the discussion & negotiation held with you in the meeting on 05.12.2001 regarding the bid lastly in respect of the captured work, we wish to clarify certain points:
1. The period of completion 15 months is most suitable for the quantum of work assessed by us & also in line contemplated in the tender.
2. Rates will be firm only upto stipulated period of 15 months except statutory increase. The retention Money will be refunded on stipulated completion.
3. The electrician work will be executed by our agency as discussed for the better coordination as desired he particulars of the said agency are enclosed. If further clarification is required we can also submit the same immediately.
In these circumstances, we request you to arrange another meeting for further discussion & negotiation at early as possible.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully,
For Office Equipment
Sd/-
Managing Partner.”
3.(i) The respondent issued its Letter of Award on 19.12.2001 accepting the appellant’s bidding rate in conjunction with the agreement in terms of the Minutes of Meeting dated 5.12.2001 of reducing the contract performance period from 15 months to 12 months.
(ii) Appellant then wrote its letter dated 1.1.2002 stating that the Letter of the Award did not result in formation of a binding contract and the appellant placed reliance upon its modified offer dated 13.12.2001 that there cannot be a valid contract unless the contract is in accordance with the terms as stated by the appellant vide its letter dated 13.12.2001. This letter dated 1.1.2002 of the appellant to the respondent reads as under:-
“Chairman & Managing Director
M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
B-9, Qutub Institutional Area
Katwaria Sarai
New Delhi-11006
Sub: Interior and other Allied works for proposed Office Complex at Sector 29, Gurgaon.
Specification No. Package-II (Part A) C 12204-C
National Highways Authority of India vs. Ganga Enterprises and Another
National Thermal Power Corporation Limited vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and Others
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.