The LT. Governor of Delhi and Others vs Gupta Trading Company

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal u/s 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code of Civil Procedure) 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the Appellants/Defendants were not entitled to forfeit the earnest money inasmuch as Respondent/Plaintiff had already withdrawn his offer on 18.9.1998 whereas the contract was placed upon the Respondent/Plaintiff only later on 13.10.1998.

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.

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 Accordingly, the trial Court held, and rightly so, that once the offer was withdrawn there was No. question of its acceptance thereafter.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.

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. The Appellants, therefore, cannot be burdened with any future interest after the deposit of decretal amount in this Court.

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.