9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of settlement agreement, effect of interim orders on contract liability, stay against fresh tendering process, termination of contract, continuation of contract for different zones.
Interpretation of settlement agreement: The petitioner claimed a composite settlement, while the respondent Corporation admitted the settlement but argued that the petitioner still had a liability to pay as per the tender agreement. The Court noted that the interim order restrained the respondent from inviting fresh tenders, affecting the contract for Zone Nos.3 and 4. Effect of interim orders on contract liability: The Court granted interim relief against the tendering process, blacklisting, and termination of the contract. However, on a subsequent date, the interim relief was modified, and the order regarding the contract was not extended, resulting in its vacation. The Court clarified the impact of these orders on the parties. Stay against fresh tendering process: The Court differentiated between zones where the contract period had expired and those where it had not. For zones 1 and 2, where the contract had ended, the stay against fresh tendering was vacated. For zones 3 and 4, where the contract was ongoing, the matter was deferred for consideration when the regular bench is available. Termination of contract: The respondent Corporation suggested withdrawing the termination order to allow the contract to continue and enable revenue generation. The petitioner indicated readiness to respond based on the Corporation's decision. Continuation of contract for different zones: The Court allowed the Corporation to proceed with issuing fresh tenders for zones 1 and 2 following a clarification. The decision on continuing the contract for zones 3 and 4 was deferred for future consideration. Conclusion: The matter was adjourned for further consideration, allowing time for the parties to address the issues raised during the proceedings.
|
