SC ruled on a contract dispute involving a bidding error where ...

Bidder's Typographical Error in Rs.1,569 vs Rs.15.04 Crore Bid Results in Rs.1 Crore Penalty

February 17, 2025

Case Laws Indian Laws SC

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.

View Source

← Previous Next →

SC ruled on a contract dispute involving a bidding error where ...

Bidder's Typographical Error in Rs.1,569 vs Rs.15.04 Crore Bid Results in Rs.1 Crore Penalty

February 17, 2025

Case Laws Indian Laws SC

You may also like:

Penalty u/s 271B - no tax audit conducted u/s 44AB - bonafide belief - When Gross profit is more than Rs.4 crores, it means the Gross Receipts were definitely more than...

Direct tax collections for FY 2023-24 as of 17.06.2023 show net collections of Rs. 3,79,760 crore, a growth of 11.18% compared to the preceding year. - Gross collections...

Contravention of Sections 8(1) and 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - receiving foreign exchange payments in 1996-97 through fake export documents...

The CESTAT disposed of the appeal with the following key holdings: Undervaluation relating to stock transfer to their own unit and sale to sister unit was held not...

Jurisdiction of Single Member Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Monetary limit Rs.50 lakhs for hearing Appeal - In the present case, the assessee returned...

Levy of Penalty u/s 129(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Errors in e-way bills - The Court emphasized that minor typographical errors in e-way bills,...

Section 12(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires reporting entities to furnish information about transactions referred to in Section 12(1)(a) to...

Levy of penalty - taking CENVAT Credit irregularly - it is the contention of the Assessee that there is some element of discretion available in the adjudicating officer...

Sub-section (1) in Section 5 amended to not levy integrated tax on Extra Neutral Alcohol used for manufacturing alcoholic liquor for human consumption. Section 6A...

Challenge to penalty order u/s 129(1) of CGST Act for non-generation of Part-B of E-way bill. Petitioner accepted notice and paid Rs. 11,08,150 penalty voluntarily...

Levy of penalty- Fraudulent issuance of GDRs by the Company - the imposition of penalty upon the appellant after 12 years from date of resigning is excessive. In a large...

Disallowance of bad debts u/s 36(1) - The non-realisation of debt can result in bad debt written off if the same is written off in the books. Since it is not the case...

HC considered bid acceptance in a tender for manpower supply based on pricing and GST inclusion. Bidder 1&2 quoted 1.18, while bidder 2 bid 1.03, indicating lower bid....

Provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) against the advances of rural branches - The circular mentions that the provisions of new clause (viia) of section...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed for an ad-hoc disallowance of 20% of expenses made by the Assessing Officer....

Quick Updates: