Refund of EMD Rs.50,000/- for rejecting his incomplete Tender who failed to mention monthly rent in application - Respondent forfeited the same - writ - their lordships held that forfeiture of EMD merely on the ground that the tender is incomplete is highly irrational. Such an action causes double disadvantage to the tenderer namely, rejection of the tender as well as the forfeiture of the EMD. - the impugned clause has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved and the same constitutes patent arbitrariness. A Statutory Corporation, such as respondent No.1, cannot resort to unjust enrichment by stipulating such clauses.-respondents are directed to refund the sum of Rs.50,000/- to thepetitioner - 2015 Telangana & A.P. 2015MSKLAWREPORT




  As the
petitioner failed to mention the monthly rent against column No.4 of the
tender form, his tender was not only rejected treating the same as invalid,
but also the sum of Rs.50,000/- paid as EMD was forfeited by respondent
No.2.  Aggrieved by the said forfeiture, the petitioner has filed W.P.

 The purpose of an EMD
is to make the tenderer bound by the tender conditions and in the event
of violation of the tender conditions the Corporation will recover the loss,
if any, caused by such tenderer for his violation through forfeiture of EMD.
The inevitable consequence of an incomplete tender is its rejection.  In
my opinion, forfeiture of EMD merely on the ground that the tender is
incomplete is highly irrational.  Such an action causes double
disadvantage to the tenderer namely, rejection of the tender as well as
the forfeiture of the EMD. 
 The respondents have not explained the
rationale behind stipulating condition No.4(d).  It is not the pleaded case
of the respondents that by rejection of the petitioners tender it has
suffered any loss.  
On the contrary, it has awarded contract to another
person by name one Rajendra Prasad who emerged as successful    
tenderer.  Even in the rejection order, except relying upon condition
No.4(d) of the tender conditions, respondent No.2 has not assigned any
reason for forfeiting the petitioners EMD.  
In my considered view, the
impugned clause has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved and 
the same constitutes patent arbitrariness.  A Statutory Corporation, such
as respondent No.1, cannot resort to unjust enrichment by stipulating
such clauses. 
        For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed.  The
respondents are directed to refund the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the
petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.

Popular posts from this blog

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more