CASE TITLE:
VEENA GARG VS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DATE OF ORDER:
19th April, 2022
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Justice Subramonium Prasad
PARTIES:
PETITIONER: VEENA GARG
RESPONDENT: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SUBJECT
While holding that the bidder cannot deviate from the tender once accepted, the Court directed the Delhi Development Authority to repay the cash to petitioner at 18 % interest rate per annum from the date of deposit.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Article 14 of the Constitution.
BRIEF FACTS
- The Delhi High Court has ruled that when bidding in a tender, a bidder cannot request a variation from the tender document that he has already approved.
- It also goes against contractual duties included in accepting such a proposal, according to Justice Subramonium Prasad, and thus contradicts the norms set down in Article 14 of the Constitution with regard to other bids.
- The Court was hearing a petition asking the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to repay the cash held by them to the Petitioner, with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum from the date of deposit.
- In 2019, the DDA announced that an e-auction of industrial property would be held on a "as is, where is" basis.
- The e-auction application was made accessible on April 1, 2019, and the deadline for submitting the required paperwork, as well as the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), was April 21, 2019.
- The Petitioner wanted to bid and submitted an online application on April 16, 2019, along with an EMD of 5% of the reserve price.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITONER
- It was claimed that the Petitioner had failed to deposit the minimum 20% of the bid premium due to bad health. As a result, the Petitioner wrote a letter to the DDA's Deputy Director (Industrial), indicating that she only learned of her bid's acceptance on the evening of June 7, 2019.
- It was also noted that the petitioner was unable to deposit the required money due to her hospitalisation. As a result, the petitioner requested a 15-day delay to deposit the remaining. In response, the Deputy Director (Industrial) denied the Petitioner's request for a 15-day extension.
ISSUE RAISED
Whether 15 days extension will be provided to the petitioner for depositing the balance money or not?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Court noted that while the Petitioner had put down 5% of the reserve price, he had failed to put down 20% of the offer premium, which was due when the bid was accepted.
- Taking note of Clause 2.4.3, which stated that if a bidder fails to deposit 20% of the bid premium within 7 days of receiving a Letter of Intent, the first stage of the EMD bid (5 percent of the reserve price) will be forfeited, the Court concluded that the Petitioner was requesting a variance from the tender document's terms.
CONCLUSION
- The Court said that after reading the tender document, it was clear that those whose bids were rejected due to a failure to deposit the funds would lose the 5% reserve price that had been lodged with the bid.
- The court dismissed the plea.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
