Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2015 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1377 - SC - Companies LawPublic auction conducted by the Delhi Development Authority ("DDA") - Appellant made the highest bid and deposited being 25% of the bid amount, with the DDA, this being earnest money under the terms of the conditions of auction - granting the extension of time to bidders for depositing the remaining amount of 75% - recovery of damages and recovery of the earnest amount seeked - breach of contract on the part of the Appellant - Held that:- In cases where a public auction is held, forfeiture of earnest money may take place even before an agreement is reached, as DDA is to accept the bid only after the earnest money is paid. In the present case, under the terms and conditions of auction, the highest bid (along with which earnest money has to be paid) may well have been rejected. In such cases, Section 74 may not be attracted on its plain language because it applies only "when a contract has been broken". In the present case, forfeiture of earnest money took place long after an agreement had been reached. It is obvious that the amount sought to be forfeited on the facts of the present case is sought to be forfeited without any loss being shown. In fact it has been shown that far from suffering any loss, DDA has received a much higher amount on re-auction of the same plot of land. The expression "whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby" means that where it is possible to prove actual damage or loss, such proof is not dispensed with. It is only in cases where damage or loss is difficult or impossible to prove that the liquidated amount named in the contract, if a genuine pre-estimate of damage or loss, can be awarded. Section 74 will apply to cases of forfeiture of earnest money under a contract. Where, however, forfeiture takes place under the terms and conditions of a public auction before agreement is reached, Section 74 would have no application. The Division Bench has gone wrong in principle. As has been pointed out above, there has been no breach of contract by the Appellant. Further, we cannot accept the view of the Division Bench that the fact that the DDA made a profit from re-auction is irrelevant, as that would fly in the face of the most basic principle on the award of damages - namely, that compensation can only be given for damage or loss suffered. If damage or loss is not suffered, the law does not provide for a windfall. Mr. Sharan submitted that in case we were against him, the earnest money that should be refunded should only be refunded with 7% per annum and not 9% per annum interest as was done in other cases. We are afraid we are not able to agree as others were offered the refund of earnest money way back in 1989 with 7% per annum interest which they accepted. The DDA having chosen to fight the present Appellant tooth and nail even on refund of earnest money, when there was no breach of contract or loss caused to it, stands on a different footing. We, therefore, turn down this plea as well. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Single Judge is restored
|