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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more