Dismissed

State of Punjab and Ors. v. Nirmal Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Mar 2010RSA/1122/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against decrees awarding recovery of earnest money to a bidder. The court held that since the bid was not approved by the requisite authority, the contract could not be awarded, rendering the appeal and stay application irrelevant and dismissing them.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and application for stay were dismissed. The suit decrees were accordingly upheld. Pending Civil Misc. Applications were disposed of.

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs Nirmal… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

RSA No. 1122 of 2010(O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CM No. 3416-C of 2010 and RSA No. 1122 of 2010(O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: March 19 , 2010

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

...... Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Nirmal Singh

¶10

...... Respondent

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari

¶12

Present: Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab for the appellants.

¶13

¶14

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶17

Ajay Tewari, J.

¶18

CM No. 3416-C of 2010

¶19

For the reasons recorded, delay of 406 days in filing the present

¶20

appeal is condoned.

¶21

CM stands disposed of.

¶22

RSA No. 1122 of 2010

¶23

This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the

¶24

Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of earnest money.

¶25

The appellants had put to auction the extraction of sand for the year 1996-97. The respondent was the highest bidder. He deposited 25% of

¶26

the bid amount as per the notice inviting tenders. The grant of tender to the

¶27

¶28

RSA No. 1122 of 2010(O&M)

¶29

respondent was, however, subject to the approval by the appellant No.2. Admittedly appellant No.2 did not approve the contract and thus the contract could not be awarded to the respondent. He consequently filed a suit for recovery of the amount he had deposited. Both the Courts having decreed the suit as mentioned above. The present appeal has been filed wherein the following questions have been proposed:-

¶30

i) Whether the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount while plaintiff has not fulfilled the condition of the sanction order?

¶31

ii)Whether the respondent-plaintiff recovered the amount while

¶32

1/4^th amount of bid deposited by the plaintiff stand forfeited?

¶33

In view of the finding of fact that the bid of the respondent was not approved thereby preventing the respondent from enjoying the benefits of his tender, the questions proposed do not arise.

¶34

Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs.

¶35

Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶36

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE

¶37

March 19, 2010 sunita

State of Punjab and Ors. v. Nirmal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Punjab and Ors. v. Nirmal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surjit Singh Vs Chinda and Ors.

Bijender Singh and Anr. Vs Raj Kumar Gupta

Narinder Mohan Vs Madhu Bala & Ors.

Sukhdev Singh Vs Raghvir Singh

Food Corporation of India and Ors. Vs M/S Ramesh Rice Mills

Gurbachan Singh Vs Budh Singh and Ors.