Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Shrushti Works And Constructions vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 January, 2022
Bench: Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 224 OF 2022
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 19089 OF 2017]
M/S SHRUSHTI WORKS AND CONSTRUCTIONS Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, on 21.03.2017, whereby the writ petition disputing the forfeiture of earnest money of Rs. 78,71,000/- was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to get a decision of the disputed question of fact from the Civil Court.
In pursuance of a tender notice dated 08.09.2016, the appellant deposited earnest money of Rs.78,71,000/- on 16.09.2016. The E-auction was thereafter conducted on 27.09.2016. In the bidding process, the first bid quoted by the appellant was Signature Not Verified Rs. 3,93,55,000/- at 13.22 hours. After several Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2022.01.08 12:41:50 IST Reason: rounds, the appellant quoted a bid amount of Rs.4,88,55,000/- at 13.58.45 hours. 2 The appellant wanted to revise his previous bid, but inadvertently submitted an amount of Rs.49,88,55,000/- at 13.59.52 hours. Two minutes later, the appellant revised his bid to Rs.4,98,85,500/- at 14.01.09 hours, but such bid was not accepted as the previous bid of the appellant was the highest.
As a consequence of not accepting the revised bid submitted by the appellant at 14.01.09 hours, the earnest money of Rs. 78,71,000/- was forfeited.
It is apparent from the bid details submitted by the appellant and not controverted by the State that within less than two minutes, the appellant has revised its bid of Rs.49,88,55,000/-. There is no doubt that the bid of Rs. 49,88,55,000/- is by mistake as increase in the bids was not moving at that speed and that high.
Consequently, the forfeiture of the earnest money by the State on account of inadvertent mistake of the appellant cannot be sustained. Hence, the order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside and the appeal is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
The State is directed to refund the amount of Rs.78,71,000/- within a period of two months. However, if the State fails to refund the amount within the stipulated time, the amount shall carry 3 interest at the rate of 6% from the date of forfeiture till the date of payment. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
.......................J. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] .......................J. [ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN ] New Delhi;
JANUARY 07, 2022.
4
ITEM NO.19 Court 11 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19089 of 2017 (Arising out of the final Judgment and order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 5893 of 2016) M/S SHRUSHTI WORKS AND CONSTRUCTIONS Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.62482/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 07-01-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Appellant(s) Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv.
M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv.
Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv.
Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)