it off by tender or otherwise as he thinks The respondent offered the highest bid of Rs.
In these circumstances the Chief Commissioner did number companyfirm the bid of the respondent and resale of the Excise Shop was ordered.
The trial judge decreed the suit holding that the sale was subject to companyfirmation by the Chief Commissioner under cl.
4,01,000/ for the shop.
The respondent was therefore held liable to make good the loss which the Government sustained in resorting to the resale of the excise shop.
Under the Excise Rules the bidder had to deposit one sixth of the purchase price within seven days of the auction but the deposit was number made by the respondent.
All final bids will be made subject to the companyfirmation by the Chief Commissioner who may reject any bid without assigning any reasons.
The resportdent preferred an appeal under Letters Patent.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 19, 1963 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No.
1,81,000,.
On May 3, 1949 the shop was again auctioned when Messrs Daulat Ram Amar Singh offered the highest bid of Rs.
33 and since the auction in favour of the respondent was number accepted by him there was numberbinding obligation between the parties.
In second appeal False, J., took the view that cl.
50 D of 1960.
If numberbid is accepted for any shop, the Chief Commissioner reserves the right to dispose.
2,20,000/ which was companyfirmed by the Chief Commissioner, on July 7, 1949.
At the companyclusion of the auction an enquiry will be made into the financial position of any bidder number known to the excise staff and any such bidder shall if necessary be called upon to furnish security for the observance of the terms of his licence as required by sub section 2 of section 34 of the Punjab Excise Act 1 of 1914, as extended to Delhi Province.
CIVIl, APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On July 22, 1949 the respondent filed a suit in the companyrt of Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi praying for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from taking any proceedings to recover the amount.
The auction took place in pursuance of the companyditions of Auction of Excise Shops in Delhi for the year 1949 50 Ex.
The decree of the trial companyrt was upheld by the lower appellate companyrt.
A. Seyid Muhammad, S.P. Nayar and B.D. Sharma, for the appellants.
3 3 was number in companysonance with the statutory rules and the companytract came into existence when the bidding was closed in favour of the respondent on March 23, 1949.
T. Desai, K.L.Arora, Bishambar Lal and H.K. Puri, for the respondent.
An auction was held for the sale of licence of companyntry liquor shop in Bela Road for the year 1949 50 on March 23, 1949.
1,81,000 being the difference between the bid of the respondent and of Messrs Daulat Ram Amar Snigh the Collector of Delhi started proceedings for the recovery of Rs.
Holding the respondent liable for the loss of Rs.
Clauses 31 and 33 of the companyditions were to the following effect The Chief Commissioner is under numberobligation to grant any license until he is assured of financial status of the bidder.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by certificate from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab High Court dated August 19, 1963 in Letters Patent Appeal No.
1613 of 1966.
50 D of 1960.
