Partly allowed

E.Dakshinamurthy v. the Principal Secretary/

Madras HC13 Oct 2017WA/1086/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed against the cancellation of a tender. It held no legal right accrued before acceptance. The court directed the respondent to refund the Earnest Money Deposit with 9% interest immediately and ordered any future auction to be conducted transparently.

What did the court decide?

Ordered refund of Earnest Money Deposit with interest at 9% per annum. Directed future auction to be transparent.

E.Dakshinamurthy Vs the Principal Secretary/ — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 13.10.2017

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶4

W.A No.1086 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶5

E.Dakshinamurthy ...Appellant

¶6

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Chairman and Managing Director, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd (SIPCOT) No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Post Box No.7223, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. ...Respondent

¶8

Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P.No.13549 of 2012 dated 15.06.2012.

¶9

 Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of
India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for
the records of the respondent herein made in Ref. No. F & R/312/12
dt 2.5.2012 and quash the proceedings therein and consequently
directing the respondent not to issue any fresh tender to any
third parties and pass such further or other orders.

¶10

For Respondent : Ms.Sudharshana Sunder

¶11

K.K. SASIDHARAN,J.

¶12

The dismissal of the writ petition challenging the cancellation of the tender made the appellant to file this intra court appeal.

¶13

The respondent initiated proceedings for auctioning the assets of a borrower, invoking Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. The appellant submitted his bid. The respondent called for a report from the Village Administrative Officer with regard to the guideline rate. Since the guideline rate was more than the rate offered by the appellant, he was invited for

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

negotiation. The appellant agreed to enhance the offer by Rs.5 lakhs. Since the appellant failed to agree to the guideline rate, the respondent cancelled the auction and directed the appellant to produce the original receipt for the purpose of refund of Earnest Money Deposit. The order passed by the respondent was challenged before the writ court. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up with this intra court appeal.

¶16

There is no dispute that the respondent considered the bid submitted by the appellant along with other bids. It was found that the bid amount has not matched with the guideline rate prescribed by the Government. The respondent, therefore, cancelled the auction. The bid of the appellant was yet to be accepted. No legal right would accrue to the appellant on account of such cancellation before acceptance of tender. We are therefore of the view that the learned single Judge was correct in dismissing the writ petition.

¶17

It appears that the respondent is yet to refund the Earnest Money Deposit to the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant has not produced the original receipt and that was the reason for the delay in making the payment. However, there is no justification for keeping the Earnest Money Deposit, even after the dismissal of the writ petition on 15 June 2012. We are therefore of the view that the respondent should refund the Earnest Money to the appellant forthwith along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

¶18

In case, the respondent is of the view that auction should be conducted, the same should be done in a transparent manner, by issuing advertisement in the local newspaper having wide circulation.

¶19

The intra court appeal is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

/true copy/

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

¶24

¶25

1 cc to Mr.V.Balu, Advocate, Sr. 74284 1 cc to Sudharshana Sundar, Advocate, sr. 73623 W.A No.1086 of 2013

¶26

SSI (CO) kk 21/11

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

E.Dakshinamurthy v. the Principal Secretary/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Dakshinamurthy v. the Principal Secretary/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Land Acquisition Officer & Vs Rathinam

Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs G.Karthic Kannan

K.Murugananthan Vs the District Collector

M.Bhaskaran Naidu Vs the Commissioner

The Secretary to Government Vs M/S.Roja Kalludaikkum Magalir

Land Acquisition Officer & Vs Siddhamal