Skip to main content

Forfeiture of earnest money

In a recent judgement, the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the matter of CHANDANESWAR ENTERPRISES LTD. VERSUS INDUSTRIAL PROMOTION & INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD., addressed the issue of forfeiture of earnest money.

The fact was that the Corporation had auctioned some properties for which the petitioner appeared as the highest bidder and as per agreement deposited an EMD of Rs. 1 lacs. However, the Corporation as well as the petitioner laid down certain conditions which were not acceptable to either party. Under the circumstances, the sale did not go through and the Corporation forfeited the EMD and came out with further advertisements for sale/auction of the properties. On each occasion the petitioner remained the highest bidder. Finally, the Corporation decided to accept the petitioner as the highest bidder but refused to adjust the forfeited EMD with the new offer.

On petitioner appealing before the hon'ble court, the court opined that:-

5. The sole point that arises for our consideration is as to whether the opposite party was justified in forfeiting the E.M.D. of Rs.1.00 lakh of the petitioner.

6. Section 7 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that in order to convert a proposal into a promise, the acceptance must be absolute, unqualified and without conditions. The offer and acceptance must correspond. The acceptance must match with the terms of the offer. When there is a variation between the offer and acceptance even in respect of any material term, acceptance cannot be said to be absolute. It does not result in the formation of a contract. An acceptance does not convert a proposal into a promise, if it is qualified by conditions.

7. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, we have given our anxious consideration to the issue involved. The sale notice, vide Annexure-1, stipulates that "if the offer is accepted by the Corporation and the offerer (s) does not come forward to accept the same, the amount deposited with the offer shall be forfeited. The amount deposited with the offer will be refunded without any interest in case the offer is not accepted by the Corporation."

8. We find that final offer made by the petitioner, vide Annexure-4, was not accepted in toto. The balance down amount of Rs.75.00 lakhs, which was offered by the petitioner to be paid in five annual installments, was accepted by the opposite party with a condition that the deferred sale consideration of Rs.75.00 lakhs shall be treated as term loan and carry interest at the rate of 14% per annum (computed at quarterly rest) with a rebate of at the rate of 3% for timely payment. In the letter dated 7.5.2005, vide Annexure-6, the petitioner had categorically stated to modify and confirm the same, but then it was rejected by the opposite party, vide Annexure-7. The acceptance did not match with the terms of the offer. Thus the offer made by the petitioner was not accepted by the opposite party. Since the offer was not accepted by the opposite party, the question of forfeiture of E.M.D does not arise at all.

9. In the wake of the aforesaid, the letter dated 24/25.1.2006, vide Annexure-11, forfeiting the E.M.D. of the petitioner is quashed. The opposite party is directed to refund the said amount within a period of thirty days to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more