LexM/S ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 128 : 2025 INSC 215 M/s ABCI Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others (Civil Appeal No. 2546 of 2025) 14 February 2025 [Sanjiv Khanna,* CJI, Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether BRO-Border Road Organisation was justified in accepting the bid of Rs.1,569/-, and on the failure of the appellant-L1 bidder to execute the agreement asking for forfeiture vide encashment of bank guarantee of Rs.15,04,64,000/-. Headnotes† Contract Act, 1872 – s.20 – Mistake of fact – Tender dispute – Forfeiture of bank guarantee/bid security on default – Respondent no.2- Border Road Organisation invited bids for the construction of tunnels and appellant ranked as L-1 bidder – When financial bids opened, the appellants discovered their mistake that instead of appellant’s bid price of Rs.1569 Crores, the quoted amount appeared to be just Rs.1569/- – Next day, the appellant informed the authorities regarding the mistake but respondent no.2 called upon the appellant to justify the quoted amount of Rs.1569/- – Respondent no.2, stating that the appellant had been declared a defaulter, and their bid security was to be forfeited, asked the appellant’s bank to encash the bank guarantee and remit Rs.15,04,64,000 to respondent no.2 – Writ petition by the appellant – Dismissed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: As per explanation to s.20, an erroneous opinion as to the value of the thing which forms the subject matter of an agreement is not deemed to be a mistake as a matter of fact – Instant case does not fall under any exception to the general principle on a person seeking relief in equity on account of mistake, for the error or mistake in quoting a price of Rs.1,569/- is self-evident – Contract for an * Author [2025] 3 S.C.R. 129 M/s ABCI Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others estimated value of more than Rs.1,500 crores requiring construction of roads and tunnels in a hilly terrain can never be executed for a mere Rs.1,569/- – Appellant was at fault and had made the mistake, of having failed to add the required zeros in the financial bid – Plea of a system glitch cannot be accepted, as others had successfully uploaded their bids without problem – Claim of BRO that delay was entirely due to the appellant’s mistake is flawed, ignoring its own lapses – Mistakes, including by authorities, to be resolved through corrective steps – Practical approach could have avoided the delay, which was caused by BRO’s refusal to acknowledge appellant’s genuine error and unwarranted cancellation of the bid – Alleged two-month delay by appellant is incorrect – Appellant promptly acknowledged the mistake – Appellant directed to pay Rs.1 crore to BRO, as a consequence of their error – Upon receiving this payment, BRO to return the appellant’s original bank guarantee or demand draft of Rs.15.04 crores – Impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 5, 10, 13-17] Case Law Cited West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Company Limited and Others [2001] 1 SCR 352 : (2001) 2 SCC 451; M/s Omsairam Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Director of Mines and Geology, BBSR & Ors., 2024 INSC 520; Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Association and Another [2007] 5 SCR 430 : (2007) 4 SCC 669 – referred to. Moffett, H. and C. Co. v. Rochester, 178 U.S. 373 (1900); Hearne v. New England Marine Ins. Co., 22 L. Ed. 395; Spina Asphalt Paving Excavating Contractors, Inc. v. Borough of Fairview, 304 NJ Super 425 – referred to. List of Acts Contract Act, 1872. List of Keywords Tenders; Mistake of fact; Delay; Online technical and financial bids; Bank guarantee; System error; Typographical mistake; Patent error; Forfeiture of bid security; Bid specifications; Relief in equity; Defaulter of bid; Cancellation of bid. 130 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2546 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2023 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CWP No. 6658 of 2023 Appearances for Parties Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Khanna, Ms. Natasha Sahrawat, Ms. Deepali Bhanot, Gautam Barnwal, Rudraksh Pandey, Ms. Alisha Roy, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Yashraj Singh Bundela, Raman Yadav, Hitarth Raja, Udit Dedhiya, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Sanjay Kap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.