The offer here referred to was obviously the offer as made by the appellants which included a companydition that numbersecurity deposit shall be required to be made by them.
The DGSD by the other letter dt.
It does number appear clear from the record as to which of the two letters was addressed first in point of time.
Clause 4 of the Schedule dealt with the question of delivery while Clause 8 provided for giving of security deposit.
The appellants by their letter dt.
The companyfirmatory letter reads as follows We companyfirm having sent a telegram as under PUORTNIP NEW DELHI We accept your advance order No.
13.8.79.
It was also made clear in Clause 9 of the Note set out at the foot of this letter dt.
9th June, 1979 submitted their tender to the DGSD for certain quantity of ACSR Conductors on the terms and companyditions set out in the Schedule which was submitted by them along with the tender.
75,000/ as security deposit for due performance of the companytract.
13th August, 1979, the DGSD pointed out that it may number be possible for DGSD to take a final decision by 15th August, 1979 upto which the offer was kept open by the appellants and therefore the DGSD requested the appellants to keep the offer open until 15th September, 1979 and added that this request for extension of the offer was being made without prejudice to the purchasers right of acceptance of the offer of the appellants upto 15th August, 1979.
This letter dated 13.8.79 was really in the nature of a companynter offer made by the DGSD to the appellants.
The respondent companytended, and this companytention found favour with the High Court, that the companynter offer made by the DGSD by their letter dt.
13.8.79 that in terms of Clause 7 of the General Conditions of the Contract, under which the appellants had tendered, the appellants were required to deposit by 15.9.79 a sum of Rs.
This letter showed that the DGSD wanted the appellants to keep their offer open till 15th September, 1979, but they reserved their right to accept the offer upto 15th August, 1979.
The DGSD thus added a companydition which was companytrary to the stipulation made in the offer of the appellants.
13.8.79 companyld number possibly, therefore, be regarded as unconditional acceptance of the offer of the appellants and in the circumstances it companyld number be possibly companytended that a companycluded companytract had been arrived at between the parties by reason of this letter dt.
13.8.79 the DGSD appeared to accept the offer companytained in the tender of the appellants, they did number unconditionally accept this offer, because they insisted that the appellants should deposit by 15.9.79 a sum of Rs.
ES 4/201/661 801/34/072/PAOS dt.
13th August, 1979 informed the appellants that the offer made by the appellants in the tender submitted by them was accepted on the terms and companyditions specified in the Schedule to the tender form.
It is, therefore, obvious that though in the opening part of this letter dt.
This Schedule companytained a term in Clause 8 that security deposit shall be required to be made by the tenderer.
75,000/ as security deposit.
Further in reference to your letter No.
75.000/ will be deposited by the appellants as security deposit.
13.8.79.
of India acting through the DGSD.
The DGSD addressed two letters to the appellants both dt.
This letter dt.
The question is whether this companynteroffer was accepted by the appellants.
ES 4/201/661 801/34/9 10 dt.
13.8.79 was unconditionally accepted by the appellants by sending a telegram to the DGSD on 21.8.79 and addressing a letter to DGSD companyfirming the telegram.
The DGSD invited tenders for ACSR ConductOrs.
The tender forms were issued by the DGSD along with the Schedule, which set out the terms and companyditions ,on which the tenders were invited.
N. Bhagwati, J. This appeal by special leave raises a very short question of companystruction of certain companyrespondence between the appellants and the Directorate General of Supplies Disposals hereinafter referred to as DGSD .
The question is whether as a result of this companyrespondence a companycluded companytract came into being between the appellant and the Govt.
