Back
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Atibir Industries Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Central Coalfields Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed against the forfeiture of the earnest money Rs.23,80,000/- towards earnest money deposited by the petitioner.
2. Petitioner’s company is engaged in manufacturing of sponge iron and had participated in E. Auction conducted by Respondents-CCL in the Month of October, 2011. He was declared successful bidder and letter with respect to the aforesaid auction was communicated to the petitioner by ‘e-mail’ on 31.10.2011.
3. As per the stipulation of the bid notice, the payment had to be made by two designated accounts of the petitioner. However, the petitioner deposited the value of coal amounting to Rs.1,33,67,700/- through RTGS mode on 09.11.2011 by the account which was not one of the non-designated accounts by which the said payment was required to be made. Since payment was made from non-designated account, as such, the coal was not supplied nor the amount was refunded.
4. Consequently, the petitioner moved this Court vide W.P.(C) No.124 of 2012 for the supply of coal to the petitioner. The respondents-CCL took a specific stand that non-payment from the designated account was a breach of the term
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....
Point of law: doctrine of forfeiture in the case of earnest money is based on a principle completely independent of the consideration that are laid down in Section 74 of the Contract Act.
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 forfeiture of earnest money requires the establishment of actual loss, and the principle of 'caveat emptor' applies in the context of property....
The language of Section 74 of the Contract Act that "whether or not actual loss or damage is proved to have been caused thereby" means only that where it is difficult or impossible to prove loss caus....
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
