Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9 The Petitioner and the first Respondent executed a separate document styled as an integrity pact. This integrity pact was signed, according to the Petitioner, separately along with the main contract. In total, six contracts were executed for fifteen regions. The integrity pact was entered into with an intention to prevent corruption and adoption of unfair means or trade practices. The main contract was to outline the basic terms and conditions regarding the quality of work to be performed in each of these territories. The Petitioner has annexed a copy of one such integrity

905.WPL.1419.15 pact and submitted that a complete reading of the same will denote as to how to achieve the aforementioned intent and to comply with the contractual obligations and work to be performed and completed by the Petitioner that it was executed. The Petitioner, therefore, has submitted that the provisions of "holiday listing and blacklisting" are to be found in the integrity pact. The contract on the other hand deals with performance standards and remedy of Respondent No.1 was to financially penalize the Petitioner, in case the Petitioner's work is found to be deficient. It is then, argued and submitted that the legal remedy of arbitration is unavailable, if there is a breach of the integrity pact whereas that remedy can be availed of in the event of any contractual dispute arising out of the separate contractual agreement.

905.WPL.1419.15 work/materials, substitution of contractor, inspection of work, supervision, payment of work done, retention money, measurements, requirements etc. That there is a Arbitration clause in this contract-document is also apparent. The separate agreement, therefore, deals with the contractual dispute and issues arising during the course of execution and implementation of the contract work, that may or may not empower Respondent No.1 to penalize the contractor by holiday listing or blacklisting in addition to terminate the contract itself. Having found that such a stipulation is not there in the distinct agreement of the above nature, it is not possible to agree with Mr Sakhardande. Thus, the absence of a clause enabling placing the contractor on a Holiday list or Black list in the contract and its specific insertion in the Intergrity Pact would demonstrate the intent of the parties. Thus, violation of Integrity Pact alone by the contractor visits him with the consequences of Holiday Listing or Black Listing and not otherwise. The Contractor's failure to abide by the clauses of the contract visits him with distinct consequences and except Blacklisting or Holiday listing.

905.WPL.1419.15 mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If there was a power to be invoked only to deal with the situation arising out of violation of the integrity pact by the contractor, then, absent such a case or allegation that power cannot be exercised. Having invoked that power not to deal with the situation warranted and provided in the integrity pact vitiates the exercise carried out. If that power is not available, then, the impugned order and action can safely be termed as arbitrary and untenable in law.