Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) Earnest money deposited by Shree Enterprises Coal Sales Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter the company) was forfeited by Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereafter BCCL). Whether such forfeiture was justified had emerged for decision before a learned Judge of this Court on a writ petition [W.P. 6828 (W) of 2015], presented by the company and one of its directors (hereafter the writ petitioners, wherever referred to collectively). The challenge succeeded; hence, BCCL and its Chairman-cum-Managing Director are in appeal before us calling in question the judgment and order dated March 16, 2016.
(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are these. The writ petitioners participated in an e-auction conducted by MJunction, a service provider, appointed by BCCL for purchase of coal. Having regard to its bid, the company was allotted two rakes of coal. The same were required to be lifted in accordance with a programme chalked out in terms of the terms and conditions of the e-auction notice, upon payment of balance coal value. In terms thereof, the company submitted an application for allotment of railway rakes, which upon endorsement by BCCL, resulted in sanction of two rakes by the East Central Railways (hereafter ECR). The validity period of the sanction was till June 11, 2009. BCCL by a notice dated April 27, 2009 informed buyers who had booked their rail programmes through bank guarantee to deposit demand draft/pay order along with debit advice to the tune of bank guarantee involved in the respective programmes by 5.30 pm on the dates mentioned in the second column of the table therein. Payment of balance coal value could be made between April 30, 2009 and May 8, 2009. The company claimed that such notice was not brought to its notice and, therefore, payment could not be tendered by May 8, 2009. One need not enter into the controversy as to the effect of non-payment by the last date i.e. May 8, 2009, since undisputedly BCCL by a further notice dated May 6, 2009 intimated fresh dates to the buyers. Payment could now be made between May 12, 2009 and June 3, 2009. Though the company had access to the notice dated May 6, 2009, it did not tender payment by June 3, 2009; instead, it tendered payment of Rs.1,36,02,000.00 towards balance coal value on June 8, 2009. The payment was accepted; however, the rakes for lifting of coal purchased by the company were not placed. As a consequence the sanction of rakes by ECR having validity till June 11, 2009, lapsed. By a writing dated July 10, 2009, ECR informed the writ petitioners that due to poor loading performance by BCCL, the rakes could not be allotted in their favour. Seized of such information, the writ petitioners requested BCCL to refund the entire money deposited by them i.e. the balance coal value and the earnest money. BCCL returned Rs.1,36,02,000.00 towards balance coal value but forfeited the earnest money of Rs.78,00,000.00.
(3.) Upon hearing the contesting parties and on consideration of the version of ECR, which was placed on record by an affidavit, the learned Judge in the impugned judgment and order ruled that the company was a victim of squabbles between BCCL and ECR and, therefore, directed the former to return the earnest money of Rs.78,00,000.00 together with interest @ 8%.;