Proportionality and Pragmatism in Addressing Self-Evident Errors in Public Contracts

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the recent Supreme Court of India decision in M/S ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT LTD. v. Union of India (2025 INSC 215). The case involved a startling instance of a bidder, M/s ABCI Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (the “Appellant”), mistakenly quoting a contract price of Rs. 1,569 instead of Rs. 1,569 Crores while bidding for a major infrastructure project by the Border Roads Organisation (“BRO”), under the Ministry of Defence.

Although the error was evident—given the nature and scale of the project—BRO initially took a rigid stance resulting in the forfeiture of the Appellant’s bank guarantee worth over Rs. 15 crores. The Supreme Court critically analyzed the competing principles of mistake in contract law, the doctrine of proportionality, and the need to maintain fairness and transparency in public contracts.

This judgment clarifies how courts should respond to glaring or patent mistakes in contract bids, ensuring that equitable relief is provided where the mistake is obvious and discovered before the parties have formally entered into a binding agreement.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, set aside the decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which had upheld the forfeiture of the bid security for the Appellant’s typographical error. After noting that the error quoted (Rs. 1,569 instead of Rs. 1,569 crores) was blatantly unrealistic, the Court concluded:

• It was a genuine mistake on the part of the Appellant, though self-induced by overlooking the actual figures at the time of submission.
• BRO’s refusal to acknowledge the self-evident nature of the error caused avoidable delay and unfairly penalized the bidder.
• The principle of proportionality required the Court to grant relief rather than permit forfeiture of the entire bank guarantee.
• The Appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1 crore to BRO in recognition of its mistake, upon which BRO was required to return the bank guarantee.

By adopting this approach, the Court reaffirmed the importance of taking an equitable, pragmatic view in circumstances where a unilateral mistake is so obvious that no contract could realistically be formed on that basis.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The Court anchored its decision in key legal principles concerning the law of mistake in contracts, referencing prior Indian and foreign case law:

• West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Company Limited (2001) 2 SCC 451: This seminal decision highlighted the principle that a bidder who discovers a material error before the contract is formally entered into may address that mistake if it is clear and acted upon promptly.
• Moffett, H. and C. Co. v. Rochester (178 U.S. 373) and Hearne v. New England Marine Ins. Co. (22 L. Ed. 395): Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States indicating that equitable relief is granted when an obvious material mistake is discovered in good faith, and the other party is promptly notified before finalizing the contract.
• Spina Asphalt Paving Excavating Contractors, Inc. v. Borough of Fairview (304 NJ Super 425): Cited to emphasize that a glaring typographical error may be disregarded or corrected if it is plainly evident to all parties.
• M/s Omsairam Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Director of Mines and Geology, BBSR & Ors. (2024 INSC 520): Applied the doctrine of proportionality to commercial contractual disputes, clarifying that extremely harsh penal consequences may be tempered where a proven mistake is clear.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning is primarily grounded in Section 20 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which deals with mistakes of fact. Although Section 20 addresses mutual mistake (thereby rendering an agreement void), the Court explained that unilateral mistakes could also be recognized for equitable relief under certain conditions where the quoted price or terms are so patently erroneous that no reasonable person could believe them to be accurate.

Furthermore, the Court invoked the doctrine of proportionality, illustrating that while the Appellant’s error was careless, forcing it to forfeit an enormous bank guarantee for an obvious typographical mistake is disproportionate. Instead, the Court required the Appellant to pay Rs. 1 crore to the BRO, reflecting a balanced approach that affirms accountability without condoning opportunism.

3.3 Impact

This judgment significantly clarifies the standards by which Indian courts should assess self-evident errors in public bidding processes:

1. Equitable Relief for Obvious Mistakes: Where it is manifestly clear that a quote or price cannot be correct, awarding authorities should not exploit that error by imposing exorbitant penalties.
2. Prompt Correction by the Bidder: The bidder must inform the authority immediately upon discovering the mistake, as the Appellant did in this case. Delay or negligence may undermine the equitable claim.
3. Proportionality in Remedies: Even if the mistake is the bidder’s fault, the remedy should be proportionate to the nature and consequences of the error. Outright forfeiture of large security amounts may not stand where the context is an unmistakable typographical glitch.
4. Reduction of Avoidable Litigation: Future tender committees and authorities may apply a more pragmatic approach, preventing prolonged disputes over overt mistakes and safeguarding timely project execution.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Certain legal concepts and terminologies appear repeatedly in the judgment:

• Unilateral vs. Mutual Mistake: A unilateral mistake is one made by a single party. In contrast, a mutual mistake is one both parties share. Under Section 20 of the Indian Contract Act, a mutual mistake can void a contract. However, a glaring unilateral mistake may still merit relief if it is obvious and quickly corrected.
• Forfeiture of Bank Guarantee: In public procurement, bidders often submit bank guarantees as security. If a bidder defaults, the government authority may encash or “forfeit” the bank guarantee. The judgment addresses when forfeiture is unwarranted due to a clear-cut typographical error in the bidding process.
• Doctrine of Proportionality: This doctrine mandates that administrative actions (including penalties) be justifiable in relation to the aims sought. In simpler terms, the punishment should not exceed what is necessary for achieving justice and order.
• Systemic or Typographical Error: A core claim here was a “system glitch” or “typographical error.” The Court refused to label the glitch as purely systemic but recognized it as a mistake requiring a measured response, not punitive forfeiture.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in M/S ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT LTD. v. Union of India cements an important principle: self-evident or glaring typographical mistakes in bids for public contracts should not be exploited through rigid literal enforcement. While such a bidder must still face some consequences for negligence—here, a payment of Rs. 1 crore—the principle of proportionality bars government agencies from applying unduly harsh penalties upon discovering an obvious and promptly disclosed error.

In the broader legal context, this decision promotes a pragmatic and fair approach to contracting in India’s massive public infrastructure sector. Stakeholders in future tenders can expect a clearer framework for handling obvious mistakes (especially in pricing), paving the way for fewer vexatious disputes, quicker resolutions, and ultimately more efficient public projects.