Back
AHANTHEMBIMOL SINGH
Gaikhonlung Panmei – Appellant
Versus
The Food Corporation of India Through The Chairman And Managing Director – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts related to the tender process. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments on forfeiture clause and contract violations. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis of contract existence and forfeiture. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT ORDER
1. Heard Mr. N. Gunedhor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. W. Darakishwor, learned senior panel counsel appearing for the respondents.
The present writ petition had been filed challenging the legality and sustainability of the order dated 29.06.2020 issued by the authority of the FCI thereby disqualifying the tender bids submitted by the petitioner's firm and forfeiting the EMD amounting to Rs. 20,80,512/-(Rupees Twenty Lakh eighty thousand five hundred and twelve only) and also black listing the petitioner's firm for a period of three years from participating in FCI tenders.
2. The legal question which has arisen is whether, upon there being a material non-disclosure or a material concealment, the forfeiture clause under Clause No. 13 of the General Information to tenderer can be invoked thereby resulting in issuance of the impugned order.
3. The relevant facts of the present case in a nutshell is that the FCI issued
Forfeiture of earnest money is valid before contract execution if tenderer provides false information, without invoking Sections 73 and 74 of the Contract Act.
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....
Tender bid valid 180 days from submission; post-expiry forfeiture of EMD and debarment invalid without extension. Debarment requires prior show cause notice per natural justice principles.
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.
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.
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....
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
