Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2024 (7) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (7) TMI 860 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Bona fide mistake in bid submission.
2. Rectification of bid errors in e-auction.
3. Applicability of judicial review in commercial matters.
4. Proportionality of penalties in bid errors.
5. Equitable relief for mistakes in bids.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Bona fide mistake in bid submission:
The appellant mistakenly entered a bid of 140.10% instead of 104.10% during an e-auction for a mining lease. Despite realizing the error and immediately contacting the first respondent, the appellant's request for rectification was denied.

2. Rectification of bid errors in e-auction:
The appellant argued that the e-auction platform did not provide any option to correct or cancel an erroneous bid. The system only allowed the bid to be authenticated with a Digital Signature Certificate, without any scope for rectification or retraction. The Court noted that the appellant acted promptly upon realizing the mistake, contacting the first respondent immediately and sending an email within two hours after the auction concluded.

3. Applicability of judicial review in commercial matters:
The Court referred to its prior decision in Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India and Ors (2019 SCC OnLine SC 1133), emphasizing that judicial review in commercial matters should be exercised with restraint. The Court should interfere only in cases of arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides, or bias. The Court acknowledged that the present case involved a mere typographical error and thus warranted consideration under the principles of proportionality, reasonableness, and equity.

4. Proportionality of penalties in bid errors:
The Court considered whether the forfeiture of the appellant's security deposit of Rs 9,12,21,315/- was proportionate to the mistake made. The Court found that the punishment was disproportionate, especially since the error was a bona fide human mistake. The Court applied the doctrine of proportionality, which requires balancing the interests of the government and private entities, and ensuring that penalties are not excessively onerous.

5. Equitable relief for mistakes in bids:
The Court referred to W. B. State Electricity Board v. Patel Engg. Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 451, which outlines conditions under which equitable relief can be granted for mistakes in bids. The Court found that the appellant met these conditions: the mistake was promptly reported, and the appellant acted in good faith. The Court concluded that holding the appellant to the erroneous bid would be unconscionable and disproportionate.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The Court quashed the communication from the first respondent that accepted the appellant's erroneous bid. The Court allowed the respondents to conduct a fresh e-auction and directed the appellant to pay Rs 3,00,00,000/- as a penalty for the mistake, with specific allocations for the amount paid. The civil appeal was partly allowed, with each party bearing their own costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates