{"id":12336,"date":"2025-11-29T05:41:43","date_gmt":"2025-11-29T05:41:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=12336"},"modified":"2025-11-29T05:55:12","modified_gmt":"2025-11-29T05:55:12","slug":"on-binding-nature-letter-of-intent-loi-indian-public-contracts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/on-binding-nature-letter-of-intent-loi-indian-public-contracts\/","title":{"rendered":"The Non-Binding Nature of Letters of Intent (LoI) in Indian Public Contracts: A Doctrinal Evolution\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"intro\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"In_the_realm_of_public_procurement\"><\/span>In the realm of public procurement<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>In the realm of public procurement, the Letter of Intent (LoI) serves as a preliminary communication, signaling the State&#8217;s tentative inclination to formalize a contract with a prospective vendor. However, as affirmed by a consistent line of Supreme Court precedents, an LoI does not engender vested or enforceable rights until all stipulated preconditions\u2014such as technical validations, performance security deposits, and the issuance of an unconditional Letter of Acceptance (LoA)\u2014are meticulously fulfilled.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/on-binding-nature-letter-of-intent-loi-indian-public-contracts\/#In_the_realm_of_public_procurement\" >In the realm of public procurement<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/on-binding-nature-letter-of-intent-loi-indian-public-contracts\/#The_Doctrinal_Core_LoI_as_a_%E2%80%9CPromise_in_Embryo%E2%80%9D\" >The Doctrinal Core: LoI as a &#8220;Promise in Embryo&#8221;<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/on-binding-nature-letter-of-intent-loi-indian-public-contracts\/#Foundational_Pillars_Early_Affirmations_of_Non-Binding_Intent\" >Foundational Pillars: Early Affirmations of Non-Binding Intent<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/on-binding-nature-letter-of-intent-loi-indian-public-contracts\/#Reaffirmation_and_Refinement_South_Eastern_Coalfields_2021_and_Beyond\" >Reaffirmation and Refinement: South Eastern Coalfields (2021) and Beyond<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/on-binding-nature-letter-of-intent-loi-indian-public-contracts\/#Preconditions_Public_Interest_and_the_Contours_of_Judicial_Review\" >Preconditions, Public Interest, and the Contours of Judicial Review<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/on-binding-nature-letter-of-intent-loi-indian-public-contracts\/#Legitimate_Expectation_A_Shield_Not_a_Sword\" >Legitimate Expectation: A Shield, Not a Sword<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/on-binding-nature-letter-of-intent-loi-indian-public-contracts\/#Restitutionary_Equipoise_Quantum_Meruit_as_Equitable_Relief\" >Restitutionary Equipoise: Quantum Meruit as Equitable Relief<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/on-binding-nature-letter-of-intent-loi-indian-public-contracts\/#Synthesis_Implications_for_Practice_and_Policy\" >Synthesis: Implications for Practice and Policy<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/on-binding-nature-letter-of-intent-loi-indian-public-contracts\/#Key_Takeaways_from_the_Supreme_Court_Judgments_on_Letters_of_Intent_LoIs_in_Public_Contracts\" >Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court Judgments on Letters of Intent (LoIs) in Public Contracts<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/on-binding-nature-letter-of-intent-loi-indian-public-contracts\/#LoI_as_a_Provisional_%E2%80%9CPromise_in_Embryo%E2%80%9D\" >LoI as a Provisional &#8220;Promise in Embryo&#8221;<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/on-binding-nature-letter-of-intent-loi-indian-public-contracts\/#States_Prerogative_to_Cancel_for_Non-Compliance\" >State&#8217;s Prerogative to Cancel for Non-Compliance<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/on-binding-nature-letter-of-intent-loi-indian-public-contracts\/#No_Legitimate_Expectation_from_Conditional_LoIs\" >No Legitimate Expectation from Conditional LoIs<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/on-binding-nature-letter-of-intent-loi-indian-public-contracts\/#Equitable_Relief_via_Quantum_Meruit\" >Equitable Relief via Quantum Meruit<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/on-binding-nature-letter-of-intent-loi-indian-public-contracts\/#Drafting_and_Litigation_Imperatives\" >Drafting and Litigation Imperatives<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>This principle, recently crystallized in State of Himachal Pradesh &amp; Anr. v. M\/s OASYS Cybernatics Pvt. Ltd. 2025 INSC 1355 decided by a 3 member bench of the Apex Court very recently on 24\/11\/2025, portrays the LoI as a &#8220;promise in embryo,&#8221; a nascent assurance that matures only upon the satisfaction of contractual thresholds. This doctrinal stance safeguards public interest by preserving administrative flexibility while mitigating risks of arbitrary decision-making.<\/p>\n<p>This article delves into the evolution of this jurisprudence, drawing from a catena of Supreme Court decisions. It examines the non-binding essence of LoIs, the limits of judicial review in tender processes, the inapplicability of legitimate expectations in conditional scenarios, and the equitable recourse of quantum meruit for appropriated work. Through direct quotes and analytical synthesis, it underscores how these rulings balance vendor protections with the imperatives of transparent and efficient public contracting.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"doctrinal-core\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Doctrinal_Core_LoI_as_a_%E2%80%9CPromise_in_Embryo%E2%80%9D\"><\/span>The Doctrinal Core: LoI as a &#8220;Promise in Embryo&#8221;<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Supreme Court&#8217;s latest exposition in OASYS Cybernatics (2025) redefines the LoI&#8217;s provisional character amid a dispute over the cancellation of an LoI for supplying and maintaining ePoS devices under Himachal Pradesh&#8217;s Public Distribution System (PDS). The vendor, having invested substantially post-LoI, invoked vested rights and legitimate expectations, arguing that the State&#8217;s abrupt termination\u2014citing failures in NIC-compatibility testing and live demonstrations\u2014breached contractual sanctity.<\/p>\n<p>The Bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, emphatically rejected this, holding that &#8220;an LoI creates no vested right until it passes the threshold of final and unconditional acceptance. It is but a &#8216;promise in embryo,&#8217; capable of maturing into a contract only upon the satisfaction of stipulated preconditions or upon the issue of an LoA.&#8221; This metaphor encapsulates the LoI&#8217;s embryonic status: laden with conditions precedent, it lacks the mutuality and finality essential for enforceability. The Court scrutinized the LoI&#8217;s explicit caveats, which rendered the process &#8220;provisional,&#8221; thereby negating any inference of a concluded bargain.<\/p>\n<p>This ruling aligns seamlessly with the public law ethos, emphasizing that LoIs in tenders are not mere formalities but safeguards ensuring compliance with technical and fiscal benchmarks. The cancellation, though &#8220;laconic&#8221; in articulation, was upheld as non-arbitrary, grounded in contemporaneous records of non-compliance, absent mala fides or favoritism.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"foundational-pillars\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Foundational_Pillars_Early_Affirmations_of_Non-Binding_Intent\"><\/span>Foundational Pillars: Early Affirmations of Non-Binding Intent<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The OASYS dictum does not emerge in vacuo; it is anchored in seminal precedents that established the LoI&#8217;s presumptive non-binding nature.<\/p>\n<table border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"6\">\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Case<\/th>\n<th>Key Holding<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Dresser Rand S.A. v. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd. ((2006) 1 SCC 751)<\/td>\n<td>&#8220;A letter of intent merely indicates a party&#8217;s intention to enter into a contract \u2026 not intended to bind either party.&#8221;<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. v. Maha Laxmi Mingrate Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 10 SCC 405<\/td>\n<td>LoIs are revocable expressions of intent; no binding rights arise upon issuance.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>These early cases lay the groundwork: LoIs are presumptively non-binding unless their terms unequivocally depart from this norm, a threshold rarely crossed in public procurement&#8217;s regulated milieu.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"reaffirmation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reaffirmation_and_Refinement_South_Eastern_Coalfields_2021_and_Beyond\"><\/span>Reaffirmation and Refinement: South Eastern Coalfields (2021) and Beyond<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. S. Kumar\u2019s Associates AKM (JV) (2021 SCC OnLine SC 486) reaffirmed this trajectory in a mining contract dispute. The employer issued an LoI contingent on performance security, integrity pact execution, and formal agreement within 28 days. The bidder mobilized equipment but flouted these preconditions, prompting cancellation and bid security forfeiture.<\/p>\n<p>A Constitution Bench, led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, reiterated: &#8220;The letter of intent merely expressed an intention to enter into a contract&#8230; There was no binding legal relationship.&#8221; Parsing the tender&#8217;s clauses, the Court delineated conditions precedent (e.g., security deposit) from subsequent ones, holding non-fulfillment vitiates contract formation. Mobilization alone, sans compliance, does not consummate the deal\u2014a critical caveat for vendors presuming partial performance binds the State.<\/p>\n<p>This was echoed in Level 9 Biz Pvt. Ltd. v. HIMUDA (2024), where the Court quashed a tender withdrawal post-LoI, but underscored:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cIt hardly needs to be reiterated that the Letter of Intent is merely an expression of intention to enter into a contract.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cIt does not create any right in favour of the party to whom it is issued.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cThere is no binding legal relationship between the party issuing the LOI and the party to whom such LOI is issued.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Here, the LoI&#8217;s mega-scale context necessitated a detailed agreement, reinforcing its embryonic role.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Collectively, these rulings form a doctrinal chain:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Preconditions in Notices Inviting Tenders (NITs) and LoIs are sacrosanct.<\/li>\n<li>They enable cancellation without broader repercussions beyond bid forfeiture.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"judicial-review\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Preconditions_Public_Interest_and_the_Contours_of_Judicial_Review\"><\/span>Preconditions, Public Interest, and the Contours of Judicial Review<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Central to this framework is the State&#8217;s latitude to cancel tenders, a facet illuminated by Tata Cellular v. Union of India ((1994) 6 SCC 651). Challenging an oil rig tender award, Tata urged judicial substitution of the decision. The Court, per Justice S. Mohan, circumscribed review to arbitrariness, mala fides, irrationality, and procedural impropriety, averring:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\u201cThe principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. [However,] it is not for the courts to examine the relative merits of the competing tenders.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This Wednesbury reasonableness standard preserves &#8220;the zone of permissible discretion&#8221; for administrators, treating cancellations\u2014rooted in public interest\u2014as immune from merits-based scrutiny unless vitiated. In OASYS, the Court invoked Tata Cellular to validate the LoI revocation, noting fresh tenders post-cancellation furthered transparency, untainted by collateral motives.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"legitimate-expectation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legitimate_Expectation_A_Shield_Not_a_Sword\"><\/span>Legitimate Expectation: A Shield, Not a Sword<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Vendors often invoke legitimate expectation to estop the State, claiming reliance on LoI-induced investments bars revocation. Yet, courts consistently rebuff this where disclaimers abound.<\/p>\n<p>In OASYS Cybernatics, the plea foundered:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The doctrine demands &#8220;a clear, unambiguous representation&#8221; sans caveats.<\/li>\n<li>The LoI&#8217;s provisional stipulations defeated any such expectation.<\/li>\n<li>Courts warn against turning legitimate expectation into a tool against administrative caution.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>This resonates with South Eastern Coalfields and Tata Cellular, reinforcing that bidders aware of conditions cannot claim surprise when enforcement follows.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"restitutionary-equipoise\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Restitutionary_Equipoise_Quantum_Meruit_as_Equitable_Relief\"><\/span>Restitutionary Equipoise: Quantum Meruit as Equitable Relief<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>While denying contractual damages, courts temper rigidity with equity. OASYS Cybernatics directed reimbursement for verified costs of appropriated ePoS devices under quantum meruit, vesting them encumbrance-free in the State, sans profit claims. This invokes unjust enrichment: &#8220;even in absence of a concluded contract, the State cannot retain the benefit of assets or services without compensating the supplier.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>This calibrated remedy\u2014restitution for tangible value, not speculative losses\u2014harmonizes non-binding LoIs with fairness, echoing South Eastern Coalfields&#8217; confinement to bid security forfeiture.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"synthesis-implications\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Synthesis_Implications_for_Practice_and_Policy\"><\/span>Synthesis: Implications for Practice and Policy<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The catena\u2014from Rajasthan Co-op (1996) and Tata Cellular (1994) to Dresser Rand (2006), South Eastern Coalfields (2021), HIMUDA (2024), and OASYS (2025)\u2014yields immutable propositions:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>(i) LoIs presumptively confer no vested rights, maturing only post-preconditions;<\/li>\n<li>(ii) unambiguous intent alone binds;<\/li>\n<li>(iii) legitimate expectations yield to explicit disclaimers; and<\/li>\n<li>(iv) quantum meruit limits restitution to appropriated value.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>For public authorities, this mandates crystalline LoI drafting\u2014embedding reservations for cancellation\u2014and robust records against challenges. Bidders must calibrate risks, viewing post-LoI investments as ventures, redeemable at best via limited equity.<\/p>\n<p>In sum, these precedents fortify public procurement&#8217;s integrity, ensuring LoIs remain embryonic promises, not fetters on the State&#8217;s duty to serve the common weal. As OASYS poignantly notes, they embody &#8220;a promise in embryo,&#8221; gestating judiciously toward contractual fruition.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"key-takeaways\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Takeaways_from_the_Supreme_Court_Judgments_on_Letters_of_Intent_LoIs_in_Public_Contracts\"><\/span>Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court Judgments on Letters of Intent (LoIs) in Public Contracts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The catena of Supreme Court decisions, spanning from Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) to the recent State of Himachal Pradesh v. M\/s OASYS Cybernatics Pvt. Ltd. (2025), provides a robust framework for understanding the provisional and non-binding nature of LoIs in Indian public procurement. These rulings emphasize administrative flexibility, public interest safeguards, and equitable remedies while curbing vendor overreach. Here are the principal takeaways:<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"loi-provisional\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"LoI_as_a_Provisional_%E2%80%9CPromise_in_Embryo%E2%80%9D\"><\/span>LoI as a Provisional &#8220;Promise in Embryo&#8221;<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>An LoI signals mere intent to contract and creates no vested or enforceable rights until all preconditions (e.g., technical approvals, performance security, or issuance of a Letter of Acceptance) are fulfilled.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>As held in OASYS Cybernatics (2025), it is &#8220;but a &#8216;promise in embryo,&#8217; capable of maturing into a contract only upon the satisfaction of stipulated preconditions.&#8221; This echoes Dresser Rand S.A. v. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd. (2006), where the Court clarified that an LoI &#8220;merely indicates a party\u2019s intention to enter into a contract&#8221; and does not bind parties unless explicitly so.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"state-prerogative\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"States_Prerogative_to_Cancel_for_Non-Compliance\"><\/span>State&#8217;s Prerogative to Cancel for Non-Compliance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Cancellation of an LoI for failure to meet preconditions is a valid exercise of discretion, rooted in public interest, and immune from judicial substitution unless tainted by arbitrariness, mala fides, or irrationality.<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Case<\/th>\n<th>Key Holding<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Tata Cellular (1994)<\/td>\n<td>Review limited to Wednesbury principles<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>South Eastern Coalfields (2021)<\/td>\n<td>LoI expresses mere intention; bid security forfeiture justified<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h3 id=\"no-legitimate-expectation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"No_Legitimate_Expectation_from_Conditional_LoIs\"><\/span>No Legitimate Expectation from Conditional LoIs<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Vendors cannot invoke legitimate expectation based on post-LoI investments, as explicit disclaimers in the LoI negate any &#8220;clear, unambiguous representation.&#8221; OASYS Cybernatics warned that such claims would turn the doctrine &#8220;from a shield against arbitrariness into a sword against administrative caution,&#8221; aligning with Tata Cellular&#8217;s insistence that bidders are bound by tender terms.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"equitable-relief\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Equitable_Relief_via_Quantum_Meruit\"><\/span>Equitable Relief via Quantum Meruit<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Absent a binding contract, courts may grant restitution for work or assets actually appropriated by the State, but strictly limited to verified costs without profits or damages. In OASYS Cybernatics, this ensured the State reimbursed ePoS devices utilized during pilots, vesting them encumbrance-free, harmonizing non-binding status with unjust enrichment principles.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"drafting-litigation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Drafting_and_Litigation_Imperatives\"><\/span>Drafting and Litigation Imperatives<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Public authorities must embed clear conditional language and maintain records for cancellations.<\/li>\n<li>Bidders assume risks on pre-LoA investments.<\/li>\n<li>Only LoIs with unambiguous binding intent (rare in public tenders) deviate from this presumption, as per South Eastern Coalfields (2021) and Level 9 Biz Pvt. Ltd. v. HIMUDA (2024).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>These principles fortify transparent procurement, balancing vendor incentives with fiscal prudence.<\/p>\n<p><b>Written By: Inder Chand Jain<\/b><br \/>\nPh no: 8279945021, Email: inderjain2007@rediffmail.com<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In the realm of public procurement In the realm of public procurement, the Letter of Intent (LoI) serves as a preliminary communication, signaling the State&#8217;s tentative inclination to formalize a contract with a prospective vendor. However, as affirmed by a consistent line of Supreme Court precedents, an LoI does not engender vested or enforceable rights<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":73,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[392],"tags":[889,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-12336","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-contract-laws","7":"tag-contract-law","8":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12336","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/73"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12336"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12336\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12336"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12336"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12336"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}