Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
AVNEESH JHINGAN,
BHUWAN GOYAL
Rajasthan State Co-Operative Bank Limited, Jaipur Through Managing Director – Appellant
Versus
D.O.E.A.C.C. Centre – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.09.2019 of the Commercial Court No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, dismissing the suit for recovery.
2. The appellant-plaintiff is a Co-operative Bank (herein after referred to as ‘bank’). In pursuance to the decision taken by the Government for computerization of Co-operative Banks, the bank approached respondent No 1 (for brevity ‘respondent’) for rendering consultancy services for procurement of computer hardware. A proposal was made by the respondent vide communication dated 01.12.2004 and after negotiation vide letters dated 11.01.2005 & 11.02.2005, the administrative charges were capped to Rs.24,50,000/-. The appellant on 03.06.2005 accepted the offer and paid Rs.6,00,000/- to the respondent. Parties entered into Memorandum of Understanding. It was agreed that the respondent will provide following services:-
“Activities of DOEACC Centre, Chandigarh:-
1. Preparation of tender document for purchasing Hardware, allied peripherals and system software, etc. 2. Publication of Tender following two-bid system -
Technical and Commercial Bids.
3. A pre bid conference will be scheduled a week's time before the last
The court affirmed that administrative charges are payable even if no purchase order is issued, as per the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding.
The NIT stipulated that tenderers who resile before the validity period shall be liable for forfeiture of EMD. The action of the respondents in seeking change of the rate offered bid amounted to resi....
Effective acceptance occurs upon dispatch, making a concluded contract binding; additional penalty clauses imposed post-acceptance invalidate forfeiture claims without proof of actual loss.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the forfeiture of earnest money deposit must be reasonable and in compliance with the tender conditions, and the court's decision was influenc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the contract stood concluded upon acceptance of the bid, and the subsequent signing of documents was only for formal documentation. The court ....
Forfeiture of earnest money is justified for willful suppression of material facts in tender process; disclosure obligations extend beyond quality-related matters; Section 74 of Indian Contract Act d....
The court held that forfeiture of earnest money without prior notice violates principles of natural justice, and a reasonable timeframe must be given for executing tender agreements.
The excess amount paid by the petitioner, beyond 25% of the bid amount, could not be considered as a deposit under Rule 9, and any retention of amount by the respondent without authority of law would....
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
