Delhi High Court
The Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors. vs M/S. Gupta Trading Company on 25 August, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.351/2002
% 25th August, 2011
THE LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. ...... Appellants
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate.
VERSUS
M/S. GUPTA TRADING COMPANY ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Parveen Gupta in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under
Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned
judgment and decree dated 2.3.2002 whereby the suit of the
respondent/plaintiff for recovery has been decreed on the ground that
the appellants/defendants were not entitled to forfeit the earnest money
RFA No.351/02 Page 1 of 4
inasmuch as respondent/plaintiff had already withdrawn his offer on
18.9.1998 whereas the contract was placed upon the respondent/plaintiff
only later on 13.10.1998.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellants/defendants
invited tenders for supply of 10,000 dual desks for the Director of
Education/appellant No.4/defendant No.1. The tenders were to be
submitted upto 3.00 P.M. on 7.10.1997 and were to be opened on the
same date at 3.30 P.M. The respondent/plaintiff vide his letter dated
7.10.1997 made an offer to supply Malaysian Sal dual desks and
submitted earnest money of Rs.1 lakh by an FDR. The period of validity
of the FDR was one year i.e. from 6.10.1997 to 6.10.1998. The
respondent/plaintiff kept his offer open for almost one year but since
there was no acceptance of his offer, the respondent/plaintiff withdrew
his offer vide letter dated 18.9.1998. The appellants thereafter suddenly
issued its letter dated 13.10.1998 accepting the offer of the
respondent/plaintiff and followed it up with a formal contract dated
17.11.1998. Since the respondent/plaintiff failed to abide by this
contract, the appellants/defendants forfeited the earnest money and for
recovery of which the subject suit came to be filed.
RFA No.351/02 Page 2 of 4
3. There is no dispute that the respondent/plaintiff withdrew its
offer through letter dated 18.9.1998 and it is only thereafter on
13.10.1998 that the offer was accepted. Accordingly, the trial Court held,
and rightly so, that once the offer was withdrawn there was no question
of its acceptance thereafter. It was not disputed before this Court that
there was no term and condition in invitation to tender for keeping the
offer open for a particular period of time. Therefore once there is no
requirement of keeping the offer open for a fixed period of time, it was
always open for the respondent/plaintiff to withdraw the offer before the
same was accepted by the appellants.
4. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity
in the impugned judgment and decree by which the suit of the
respondent/plaintiff has been decreed for the amount of earnest money
of Rs.1 lakh alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per
annum simple. The amount deposited in this Court by the appellants be
released to the respondent/plaintiff. Since the amount deposited is the
complete decretal amount, on withdrawal of this amount the liability of
the appellants/defendants will stand satisfied inasmuch as though the
respondent/plaintiff could have withdrawn the amount from this Court
subject to furnishing security, they however made no such application.
RFA No.351/02 Page 3 of 4
The appellants, therefore, cannot be burdened with any future interest
after the deposit of decretal amount in this Court.
5. There is accordingly no merit in this appeal which is therefore
dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Trial Court record
be sent back.
AUGUST 25, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
