Sealed-bid auction terms govern the bidder's rights, and contractual forfeiture of the deposit was upheld on default.

A sealed-bid auction bidder who submits a conditional offer is bound by the terms recorded in the auction minutes and the contemporaneous acceptance letter, especially where the sale notice allowed rejection of non-conforming bids. The court noted that the bank had no prior notice of the bidder's condition concerning statutory dues, and the accepted auction terms placed those dues on the purchaser while also permitting forfeiture of the deposit on default in payment of the balance consideration. Because the refund claim failed on the contractual terms, no separate interest claim could survive. The suit was therefore dismissed and the bank's right to retain the deposit upon default was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount deposited towards the auction sale on the footing that his conditional bid was accepted without accepting the condition regarding statutory dues; (ii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the claimed amount.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount deposited towards the auction sale on the footing that his conditional bid was accepted without accepting the condition regarding statutory dues.

Analysis: The sale notice was only an invitation to offer and expressly provided that non-conforming offers could be rejected. The plaintiff submitted a conditional bid, but the auction was conducted by sealed bids and the bank had no prior notice of the condition regarding statutory dues. The minutes of auction and the contemporaneous letter of acceptance showed that the plaintiff's bid was approved subject to the sale terms, except for extension of time to pay the balance consideration. The plaintiff was found to have accepted the bank's communication on the same day, and the contract between the parties was held to be constituted by that accepted letter and the auction minutes, under which statutory dues were to be borne by the purchaser and non-payment of the balance entitled the bank to forfeit the deposit.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to recover the deposited amount; the claim failed against the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the claimed amount.

Analysis: Since the principal claim for refund was rejected and the plaintiff was held bound by the contractual terms of the auction sale, no separate relief for interest could survive.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to interest; this issue was decided against the plaintiff.

Final Conclusion: The suit was held to be without merit and dismissed in full, with the bank's contractual entitlement to retain the deposit upon default being upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A bidder at a sealed-bid auction is bound by the terms of the accepted bid and auction documents, and where the contemporaneous acceptance records the governing conditions, a later attempt to resile from those terms does not defeat contractual forfeiture.

---