NIRMAL KUMAR Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Samdariya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has deposited the earnest money as per advertisement with a condition that if his offer is accepted for full work, the receipt of the same my be issued, otherwise, demand draft may be returned within 10 days. He also mentioned in his letter that if any dispute arises, the matter will be referred to arbitrator, therefore, the court below has erred in not referring the matter to the arbitrator as he got the receipt, as per his condition.

(2.) Mr. Bhansali, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the advertisement it was nowhere mentioned that by issuing receipt of earnest money, the offer will be deemed to be accepted. As such the court below has rightly dismissed the application and there is no jurisdictional error in the order of learned Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge.

(3.) Admittedly there is no condition mentioned in the advertisement that even on issuing receipt of the earnest money, the tender will be deemed to be accepted. On the other hand there is specific mention that without giving any reason the respondents will be free to reject any tender. Therefore, merely by issuing receipt on 20.12.1986 for the draft of the earnest money of the tender submitted for the alleged contract as per advertisement, it could not be presumed that the offer was accepted and it concluded the contract between the parties. The earnest money was also refunded on 14.1.1987. Thus no right could be accrued to refer the matter for arbitration under Sec. 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, there is no error of jurisdiction and the court below have not committed any jurisdictional illegality or material irregularity in dismissing the application for reference to the arbitration. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.