STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. A P PAPER MILLS LTD
LAWS(SC)-2006-4-47
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on April 03,2006

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Appellant
VERSUS
A.P.PAPER MILLS LTD. Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

MAHAKALI SCRAP TRADERS VS. O L OF G S T C LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2006-8-84] [REFERRED TO]
V K PATEL VS. CHAIRMAN [LAWS(GJH)-2011-12-45] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH MEHTA VS. CUSTODIA APPOINTED UNDER THE SPECIAL COURT [LAWS(SC)-2007-1-56] [REFERRED TO]
DURAI ENTERPRISES VS. TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS [LAWS(APH)-2011-12-56] [REFERRED TO]
MODI PROJECTS LTD. VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
Udyog Enterprises VS. Principal Secretary and Appellate Authority Transport Department Government of Karnataka, The Chief Traffic Manager and Durga Facility Management Services Pvt. Ltd. [LAWS(KAR)-2013-12-242] [REFERRED TO]
ALFA BHOJ PVT LTD VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-323] [REFERRED TO]
M/S SIKKA PROMOTERS PVT LTD VS. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-209] [REFERRED TO]
SRIMANNARAYANA TRADING COMPANY VS. TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAM [LAWS(APH)-2013-7-80] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED VS. VIJAI ELECTRICALS LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2015-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD VS. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2015-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
VEEKAY PLAST VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-2-283] [REFERRED]
RAM KUMAR SHYAM LAL VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-11-768] [REFERRED TO]
ADARSH FOOD PRODUCTS (P) LTD. VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2018-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR, ESSEN FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS LTD. VS. CITY PULSE THEATERS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2022-3-1266] [REFERRED TO]
CITY PULSE THEATERS PVT. LTD. VS. O.L. OF ESSEN COMPUTERS LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2021-10-1484] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, directing the appellant to refund the earnest money which was forfeited along with interest @ 6% from the date on which the respondent had withdrawn its offer till actual date of payment. Further direction was given to refund the amount within a period of 8 weeks from the date of judgment.
(2.)Factual background in a nutshell is as follows: Appellant No.2 had issued a Tender Notice dated 8-6-1987 for sale of Bamboo Units in Vadasa (Unit No.7) and Gadchiroli (Unit Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 14). The appellant No.3 had also issued a Tender Sale notice in respect of Bhamragarh (Unit No.5) Chandra-pur Circle for the same purpose. The terms and conditions of both the tender notices were identical. The tender was to be submitted in the prescribed form on or before 15-7-1987 and sealed tenders received from the bidders were to be opened on the same day and tenderers were to pay earnest money deposit i.e. 10% of the total royalty to be worked out on the basis of the total estimated yield of that Bamboo Unit. It was mentioned in the Tender Notice that the sealed tender should be accompanied by the treasury challan or demand draft indicating that earnest money has been deposited. It was further stated in the Tender Notice that in case of successful tenderers, the earnest money deposit would automatically stand appropriated towards the security deposit which is required to be furnished. It is the case of the respondent that as per the conditions stipulated in the tender after the submission of the tender, the offer would be considered valid for a period of 45 days from the date of the Tender Sale. Pursuant to the Tender Notices issued by the appellants 2 and 3, the respondent submitted tenders on 15-7-1987 and before submitting the Tender Notice the respondent had deposited the earnest money as required by the Tender Notice. As per the clause 7 of the Tender, the final sale result was to be declared within 30 days for getting approval of the competent authority and since appellants 2 and 3 did not declare the final sale result even after the expiry of 30 days from the date of opening of the Tender i.e. 15-7-1987, the respondent sent a telegram on 15-8-1987 to appellant Nos. 2 and 3 in which it was stated that since the final sale had not been declared within 30 days as per Clause 7 of the Tender Notice, the respondent had withdrawn its offer and requested for return of the earnest money deposit. The respondent also addressed letters to the appellants 2 and 3 on the same date, in which reference was made to the message and telegram which had been sent earlier. On 17-8-1987 the respondent addressed another communication reiterating its stand of withdrawing their offer and requesting for refund of the earnest money. But it did not receive any reply to the telegram which was sent on 15-8-1987 or to the letters sent on the same day addressed to the appellant Nos.2 and 3 and also to the communication dated 17-8-1987 which was addressed to appellants 2 and 3. Therefore, on 2-9-1987 a letter was addressed to the appellant No.2 stating therein that even after expiry of 45 days on 29-8-1987 the final results had not been declared and, therefore, earnest money deposited by the respondent should be refunded. Again on 16-9-1987 it addressed letters to appellants 2 and 3 stating therein that final sale result had not been declared even after the expiry of 45 days and the respondent had already withdrawn the offer and, therefore, the respondent was entitled to the refund of the earnest money deposit.
(3.)It is an admitted position that the final sale result in respect of the tender opened on 15-7-1987 was declared on 17-9-1987 which was communicated to the respondent on 21-9-1987, in which it was mentioned that the highest offer of the respondent was accepted.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.