Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Tender Bid Dispute — Upholds Forfeiture of Bid Security. The court ruled that the respondent was bound by its agreement to keep the bid open for 90 days, and thus the forfeiture of the Bid Security was justified under Section 5 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a tender process initiated by the State of Haryana for the collection of toll at a bridge over the Yamuna River. The respondent, M/s. Malik Traders, was the second highest bidder after M/s. Gaurav Traders, who failed to fulfill the tender requirements. The respondent had initially submitted a bid and agreed to keep it open for 90 days. After Gaurav Traders' bid was forfeited due to non-compliance, the respondent was issued a letter of acceptance. However, the respondent expressed disinterest before the acceptance was communicated and sought a refund of the Bid Security. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, quashing the acceptance and ordering the refund. The Supreme Court, upon appeal, analyzed the contractual obligations under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, particularly Section 5 regarding the revocation of offers. The court concluded that the respondent could not withdraw its bid before the 90-day period expired and was thus liable for the forfeiture of the Bid Security. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, reinstating the forfeiture and dismissing the writ petition. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to the terms of the bid to ensure genuine participation in the tender process.

Headnote

A) Contract Law - Revocation of Offer - Conditions for Withdrawal - Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 5 - The respondent's withdrawal of its bid was invalid as it had agreed to keep the bid open for 90 days, and thus the forfeiture of the Bid Security was justified. The court held that the respondent was bound by its agreement despite its attempt to withdraw before the acceptance was communicated (Paras 10-12).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondent could withdraw its bid after agreeing to keep it open for 90 days, and the validity of forfeiting the Bid Security.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the writ petition, thereby upholding the forfeiture of the Bid Security.

Law Points

  • Contractual obligations
  • Bid Security
  • Tender process
  • Revocation of offer
  • Indian Contract Act
  • 1872
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (SC) (08) 45

Civil Appeal No. 7033 of 2011

2011-08-17

Cyriac Joseph, V.S. Sirpurkar

State of Haryana & Ors.

M/s. Malik Traders

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Dispute regarding the forfeiture of Bid Security in a tender process.

Remedy Sought

The respondent sought to quash the letter of acceptance and the forfeiture of Bid Security.

Filing Reason

The respondent claimed it withdrew its bid before acceptance and sought a refund of the Bid Security.

Previous Decisions

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the forfeiture and ordering a refund.

Issues

Validity of bid withdrawal Forfeiture of Bid Security

Submissions/Arguments

The respondent argued it withdrew its bid before acceptance, thus no contract existed. The appellants contended that the respondent was bound by its agreement to keep the bid open for 90 days.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a bidder cannot withdraw its offer during the validity period if it has agreed to keep the bid open, and forfeiture of Bid Security is enforceable under such circumstances.

Judgment Excerpts

The respondent could not have withdrawn the bid before the expiry of the period of 90 days. The full value of Bid Security was liable to be forfeited in terms of the agreement contained in paragraph 10 of the offer/bid.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the High Court's judgment dated 7.7.2009, which allowed the writ petition and quashed the letter of acceptance and forfeiture of Bid Security.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Contract Act, 1872: Section 5
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals Regarding Electricity Distribution Licenses — Clarifies Rights of Tata Power and Reliance Energy.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Pay Scale Dispute — Upholds Tribunal's Order for Higher Pay