The Supreme Court found the Appellant’s error to be apparent and self-evident, warranting equitable relief. (Para 16) BRO’s refusal to acknowledge the mistake and issue a fresh tender caused avoidable delays. (Para 13) The contract’s scale made the Appellant's quoted bid of Rs.1,569 patently unrealistic. (Para 10) Directed the Appellant to pay Rs.1 crore to BRO, after which the original bank guarantee was to be returned within one week. (Para 17)

The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside. The Supreme Court emphasized the principles of equity and proportionality while resolving contractual disputes arising from genuine mistakes.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – Special Leave Petition

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal

• Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 20 – Agreement Void due to Mistake

Subjects: Unilateral Mistake – Bank Guarantee – Bid Error – Proportionality – Judicial Review – Equity – Fresh Tender – Lower Cost

Nature of the Litigation: Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition challenging the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant.

Who Sought Remedy and For What: Appellant – M/s ABCI Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. – sought relief against the forfeiture of their bank guarantee amounting to Rs.15.04 crores by Respondent No. 2 – Border Roads Organisation (BRO).

Reason for Filing the Case: The dispute arose from an error in the Appellant's financial bid for a high-value infrastructure project, where a bid of Rs.1,569 was mistakenly submitted instead of Rs.1,569 crores.

Previous Decisions:

• High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the Appellant's writ petition on 07 October 2023.

Issues: a. Whether BRO was justified in encashing the bank guarantee due to the Appellant's bid error. b. Whether the principle of proportionality applied to the forfeiture. c. Whether the Appellant was entitled to equitable relief due to the apparent error.

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellant: The bid error was a genuine, self-evident mistake and BRO acted unreasonably by encashing the bank guarantee despite prompt correction.

• Respondent (BRO): The Appellant failed to exercise due diligence and their error caused delays necessitating a fresh tender.

Ratio:

• Unilateral mistakes that are clear and apparent may attract equitable relief (Para 6, Para 9).

• Proportionality applies in contractual matters, particularly where errors are self-evident (Para 9).

• Prompt disclosure of errors and seeking correction before contract formation is vital for equitable relief (Para 7).