Supreme Court Upholds Tender Forfeiture Decision: Revocation of Offer Justifies Earnest Money Loss

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision regarding the forfeiture of earnest money in a tender dispute. The Court found that the correction made by the petitioner in the tender offer constituted a revocation of the original offer, justifying the respondent's right to forfeit the earnest money as per the tender conditions. The judgment relied on established legal principles stating that earnest money is forfeited if a deal fails due to the fault of the offering party. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming the forfeiture of earnest money by the respondent.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of tender conditions regarding earnest money forfeiture.
2. Effect of correction in tender offer on revocation of original offer.
3. Applicability of legal principles on earnest money forfeiture in the present case.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute over the forfeiture of earnest money by the respondent after the petitioner corrected a figure in its tender offer. The High Court upheld the forfeiture based on the tender conditions. The Supreme Court analyzed Clause 6 of the Notice, which clearly stated that earnest money would be forfeited if the firm revoked its offer during the validity period. The Court examined whether the correction made by the petitioner constituted revocation of the original offer, ultimately agreeing with the High Court's decision regarding the forfeiture.

2. The petitioner argued that the correction was necessary due to a mistake in the initial tender offer, emphasizing that the entire Notice was later recalled. The respondent contended that the petitioner's failure to stand by the original offer led to the reissuance of the tender at revised costs, justifying the forfeiture of earnest money. The Court noted that the petitioner's correction resulted in an increase in the bid amount, indicating a change in the offer terms and supporting the forfeiture under the tender conditions.

3. The judgment referred to established legal principles on earnest money forfeiture. Citing precedents, the Court highlighted that earnest money is part of the purchase price if the transaction proceeds but is forfeited if the deal falls through due to the fault of the party offering it. Applying these principles to the case, the Court concluded that the respondent was entitled to forfeit the earnest money due to the petitioner's failure to adhere to the original offer terms, leading to the transaction not materializing. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the High Court's decision on the forfeiture of earnest money.

---