ANIL KUMAR CHANANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of four civil revisions, 203,204,256 and 627 all of 1973. They raise a common question of law. The respondent in each of the revisions is the Union of India, which was the defendant in the suits, while the petitioners are different plaintiffs. The revisions are directed against the various decrees of the Judge, Small Causes Court, by which he had dismissed the suits of the respective plaintiffs for recovery of the amounts of earnest money.

(2.) The detailed facts in each case are different Names and figures vary but the broad features are, however Common in all the four cases. The respondent Union of India issued ed invitations to tender for sale of commoditiese and demanded earnest money which was to be adjusted towards the price of the contracted, if the contracts were completed, or refunded to the party in case the tenders were rejected. Petitiongers submitted their tenders along with the earnest money. It was one of the terms of the tenders that the petitioners must keep their offer open up to a particular date, viz, the opening of the tender. When tenders were opened, petitioners were asked to keep offer open for a further period. The petitioners in all the four cases in spite of keeping their offer open submitted counter offers on enhanced rates and thereby withdrew their previous offers and the contracts were not 1977 Rajdhani Law Reporter 26 concluded. Under the circumstances, the respondent Union of India forfeited the amount of earnest money deposited which was Rs.500.00 in each of the cases before me. The petitioners filed the suits giving rise to the revisions for recovery of the said amount. The defence was that the amount had been forfeited in terms of the tender. The petioners contended that they were not bound to keep the offers open for any particular date and at all evends the respondent was not entitled to forfeit the amount on failure of the petitioners to keep the offers open. Before the court below the contention of the petitioners failed and the defence of the respondent prevailed, as a result, all the four suits were dimissed. The petitioners have filed these revisions under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and have contended that the decree of Court below is contrary to law.

(3.) The question of law raised in the revisions is indeed interesting. The term on which reliance has been placed by the respondent to support the forfeiture is clause 9 of the tender which reads as follows ......