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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.