IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11467 of 2004 M/S MARUTI INTERNATIONAL'86, 107-GAGAN APARTMENTS, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA 800001 THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, AJAY SARAF SON OF SRI KISHAN LAL SARAF, RESIDENT OF 106, GAGAN APARTMENTS, EXHIBITION ROAD, TOWN AND DISTRICT PATNA……PETITIONER. Versus 1. BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, FRASER ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, FRASER ROAD, PATNA 800001 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, INDIRA BHAWAN, RAM CHARITRA PATH, PATNA…………………………….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Alok Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the Corporation : Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vinay Krishna Tripathy, Advocate. ----------- 04/ 14.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Bihar State Financial Corporation and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for refund of earnest money of Rs.20,000.00 deposited by him to the respondent Corporation in response to the sale/tender notice for sale of the mortgaged assets of M/s Simplex Rubber Works, Pataliputra Industrial Area, Patna with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of deposit of the earnest money i.e. 28.08.1998 till the date of refund. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents contests the claim of petitioner stating that there is a term of forfeiture of the earnest money in the sale order and since the petitioner has refused to make payments in term of the sale order, the - 2 - Corporation is fully entitled to forfeit the said amount of earnest money. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the said earnest money was deposited on 28.08.1998, whereas the instant writ petition was filed on 18.09.2004 and hence any money claimed by the petitioner is affected by limitation. 4. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties, it is quite apparent that in the advertisement no forfeiture clause had been mentioned nor the petitioner had ever accepted that his earnest money deposited with the respondent would be forfeited, rather only in the sale order issued by the respondent Corporation in favour of the highest bidder, clause of forfeiture was mentioned but when the highest bidder backed out from his bid, the Corporation offered it to the petitioner who was second highest bidder but the petitioner refused to accept the said offer due to which his earnest money was forfeited. 5. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the forfeiture clause was neither present in the advertisement nor it was mentioned in any letter of the respondent Corporation sent to the petitioner except the subsequent sale order issued in the name of the petitioner. This appears to be a completely one sided affair by the respondent Corporation and cannot be deemed to be forfeiture agreement between the parties. Thus, the respondent Corporation was not justified in keeping the said earnest money and the Corporation - 3 - should have paid it to the petitioner immediately on his refusal. 6. So far the question of delay is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no information was sent to the petitioner by the respondent Corporation due to which he was not knowing about the forfeiture and when he learnt about it he immediately filed the instant writ petition. Due to the aforesaid fact as well as the pendency of this writ petition from 2004, this court finds that the amount of earnest money being admitted, the Corporation is liable to pay the same to the petitioner but due to the same facts, this court does not find it equitable to direct payment of interest also on the said earnest money by the respondent Corporation to the petitioner. 7. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is allowed only with respect to the principal amount of earnest money of Rs.20,000.00 and the respondent Corporation is directed to pay the said amount to the petitioner within two months from today. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)