Judgment THAKKAR, J.-Only two contentions have been raised in this appeal by an unsuccessful plaintiff. He had submitted a tender which he withdrew subsequent to its acceptance by the defendant, Union of India. The suit was for the return of Rs 16,000 which he had deposited along with the tender which was accepted by the Chief Engineer, Eastern Command expressly on behalf of the President of India by his letter dated April 1, 1958. These two contentions are : 1. No legal contract which satisfied the requirements of Article 299(1) of the Constitution of India had come into existence. The appellant was therefore entitled to the refund of Rs 16,000 deposited by him along with the tender. 2. The Chief Engineer, Eastern Command, who accepted the tender had made a demand of Rs 700 which amounted to a conditional acceptance of the tender. Under the circumstances, the contract was incomplete and the appellant was in any view of the matter entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by him. The High Court has taken the view that whether or not the contract was in conformity with Article 299(1) of the Constitution of India was concluded against the plaintiff by Union of India v. A. L. Rallia Ram { AIR 1963 SC 1685 } albeit in the context of Section 175 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The facts in that case were very much similar to the facts in the present case. There was no formal document executed on behalf of the Union of India. A tender notice was issued by the Government of India, Department of Food. There was correspondence and ultimately there was an acceptance notice which was signed by the Chief Director of Purchases on behalf of the Governor General of India. However, a formal agreement had not been drawn up. In the background of these facts this Court has taken the view that Section 175(3) does not require the execution of any formal document. Two essential requirements enjoined by the said provision are that the acceptance must be in writing and that it must be in the name of the Governor General. In the background of these facts this Court has taken the view that Section 175(3) does not require the execution of any formal document. Two essential requirements enjoined by the said provision are that the acceptance must be in writing and that it must be in the name of the Governor General. The law stated in the context of the corresponding provision of Government of India Act of 1935 [Section 175 (3)] which is in pari materia holds good in the context of Article 299 (1) of the Government of India Act as well. In the present case, there is an acceptance in writing by the Chief Engineer, Eastern Command who has signed the letter of acceptance expressly on behalf of the President of India. Both the requirements are thus satisfied. The view taken by the High Court cannot therefore be taken exception to. 3. So far as the second point is concerned, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the acceptance of the tender by the Chief Engineer was a conditional one. Reliance has been placed in this context on the letter of acceptance which is quoted hereunder to the extent material : Reference your tender dated March 11, 1958. Your tender for the above service for the lump sum of Rs. 8,34,280.22 (Rupees Eight lakhs, thirty-four thousand two hundred and eighty and twenty-two naya paise only) is, hereby accepted by me on behalf of the President of India. In accordance with condition 22 of IAFW 2249 you are required to lodge with GE Panagarh a sum of Rs. 700 (Rupees seven hundred only) as additional security within 30 days from the receipt of this letter. The High Court has read this letter of acceptance as one of unconditional acceptance of the tender. The demand for deposit of Rs. 700 as additional security was a request made in the context of IAFW 2249. We agree with the manner in which the letter has been read and interpreted by the High Court namely that it was an unconditional acceptance of the tender. It was a letter requiring the appellant to deposit a further sum of Rs. 700 after the tender was accepted and the contract came into existence. It was not obligatory on the appellant to comply with the request if it was not a part of the condition of the tender. It was a letter requiring the appellant to deposit a further sum of Rs. 700 after the tender was accepted and the contract came into existence. It was not obligatory on the appellant to comply with the request if it was not a part of the condition of the tender. Be that as it may, we are in full agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the High Court. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. For Citation : 1987 (Supp) SCC 127. Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.