Villayati Ram Mittal P.Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the correction made by the petitioner in its tender constituted a revocation of the original offer, thereby justifying the forfeiture of the earnest money of Rs.40 lacs as per Clause 6 of the tender notice. The Court emphasized that the terms of the notice were clear and binding, and the petitioner’s failure to comply with the requirement of earnest money being in the form of FDR from a nationalized bank further weakened its position. Consequently, the petitioner's writ petition was dismissed, affirming the forfeiture of the earnest money.