Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
SC ruled on a contract dispute involving a bidding error where appellant mistakenly bid Rs.1,569 instead of Rs.15,04,64,000. While acknowledging appellant's error in failing to add zeros in the financial bid, the court found Border Roads Organisation's (BRO) response disproportionate. The court determined this was not a Section 20 case of mutual mistake under Indian Contract Act, but rather a unilateral error. BRO's actions in encashing bank guarantee and declaring appellant defaulter were deemed unjustified, given the obvious typographical nature of the error. Court directed appellant to pay Rs.1 crore as penalty, ordering BRO to return the Rs.15.04 crores bank guarantee within one week. Appeal allowed, emphasizing practical resolution of evident mistakes over punitive measures.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.