[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sunilkumar S/O Nandlal Peepra vs The Chief Conservator Of Forest ... on 21 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:1155
14.sa.374.2025 Judgment.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
SECOND APPEAL NO.374 OF 2025
APPELLANTS :- 1) Sunilkumar S/o nandlal Peepra, (Dead)
(Ori. plaintiff)
(On R.A.) through his Legal heirs,
1(a) Smt. Geeta w/o Sunilkumar Peepra
Aged about 50 years, occ: Business,
1(b) Saurav S/o Sunilkumar Peepra,
Aged about 25 years, Occ: Student
1(c) Shivam S/o Sunilkumar Peepra,
Aged about 23 years, Occ: Student,
All R/o Ward No.10, Baihar Road,
Balaghat-481001, District Balaghat
(M.P.).
1(d) Muskaan d/o Sunilkumar Peepra,
Aged about 21 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Ward No.28, Saraswati Nagar,
Balaghat-481001, District- Balaghat.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT :- The Chief Conservator of Forest
(Ori. Defendant)
(On R.A.) (Production), Maharashtra State,
M.E.C.L. Building, Near T.V. Tower,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur-440006.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. U.M. Aurangabadkar, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. H.D. Dubey, Advocate for Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 21/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the
respective parties.
C.L. Dhakate
14.sa.374.2025 Judgment.odt
2. The present second appeal is filed by the original
plaintiff, who had filed a suit for refund of the earnest money
deposit, deposited by him with the respondent/original defendant
in response to a tender notice at Exh.73. The bid of the appellant
was accepted on 07.01.2002 (Exh.65). Intimation with respect to
acceptance of tender is sent to the plaintiff vide communication
dated 11.01.2002 (Exh.66). Thereafter, the defendant issued letter
dated 07.02.2002 to the plaintiff, extending the time for execution
of agreement upto 10.02.2002. Plaintiff issued communication to
the defendant stating that his bid was not technically qualified and
therefore, same should have been rejected as non-responsive. He
contends that in case bid is rejected as non-responsive, the
defendant is not entitled to forfeit the earnest money deposit. In the
present case, the defendant has forfeited the earnest money deposit
on account of failure on the part of plaintiff to execute agreement
despite acceptance of his bid. The earnest money is forfeited placing
reliance on clause 12 of the terms and conditions of the tender.
3. The contention of Mr. Aurangabadkar, the learned
Advocate for the appellant/plaintiff, is that the letter of acceptance
dated 11.01.2002 was not served on the plaintiff. He contends that
the letter of extension dated 07.02.2002 was posted on 09.02.2002
C.L. Dhakate
14.sa.374.2025 Judgment.odt
and was, in fact, served on the plaintiff on 12.02.2002. The
contention is that since the time was extended only till 10.02.2002,
it is obvious that the plaintiff could not have entered into the
agreement before 10.02.2002, i.e., the date upto which the period
for execution of the agreement was extended. The learned Advocate
therefore contends that the earnest money deposit cannot be
forfeited as is done by the defendant. As per the contention of the
plaintiff, his bid ought to have been rejected as a non-responsive
bid.
4. In the considered opinion of this Court, a bidder cannot be
withdraw his offer on the ground that he does not fulfill the
technical criteria under the tender conditions. Clause 4 of the
tender conditions prescribes that the tenderer shall be bound by his
offer till the tendering authority passes an order accepting or
rejecting the tender. It is also provided that in case the tender is
withdrawn prior to passing of the order, the earnest money shall be
forfeited.
5. The contention of Mr. Aurangabadkar, is that the offer is
withdrawn after passing of the order dated 11.01.2002 and therefore
clause 4 would not apply.
6. As regards clause 12, the contention that the earlier
C.L. Dhakate
14.sa.374.2025 Judgment.odt
communication accepting the offer of the plaintiff' offer was not
served on the plaintiff. He contends that only letter of extension
dated 07.02.2002 is served and that too after the dates stipulated for
execution of agreement had expired. The contention is that
forfeiture of amount under clause 12 can be made only on account
of failure on the part of the plaintiff /tenderer to execute the
agreement. The learned Advocate contends that since the
communication dated 07.02.2002 was received after 10.02.2002,
the plaintiff cannot be held responsible for non-execution of the
agreement. The foundation of the argument of Mr. Aurangabadkar
is that the initial communication accepting the tender was never
served on the plaintiff. The learned First Appellate Court has
specifically recorded that the contention with respect to non-receipt
of letter dated 16.01.2002 was not raised before the learned trial
Court. The learned First Appellate Court has recorded that this
contention was recorded for the first time in the appeal after a
period of around 19 years. It will be pertinent to state that the letter
dated 07.02.2002 clearly records that the communication of
acceptance was dispatched by the defendant to the plaintiff by fax.
The plaintiff has made correspondence after receiving this letter.
However, the correspondence does not indicate that the plaintiff
C.L. Dhakate
14.sa.374.2025 Judgment.odt
disputed receipt of the letter of acceptance.
7. Likewise, as rightly observed by the learned Courts that
there is no contention regarding non-communication of acceptance
in the plaint. In view of the aforesaid, it must be held that the
plaintiff has failed to execute the agreement after receipt of letter of
acceptance of his bid by the defendant, thereby warranting
forfeiture of the earnest money as per clause 12 of the tender
condition.
8. Even otherwise, if the contention of plaintiff regarding
non-receipt of letter of acceptance is accepted, the earnest money
deposited can be forfeited under Clause 4, since the plaintiff is
withdrawing his offer before receipt of any communication from the
defendant regarding acceptance or rejection of his bid. The
contention of Mr. Aurangabadkar that the bid is withdrawn after
passing of the order dated 11.01.2002 accepting the bid does not
hold water, since passing of the order qua the plaintiff will obviously
mean communication of the order accepting the bid to the plaintiff.
9. In view of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this
Court, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Second Appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)
C.L. Dhakate
