Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. It is stated that the Demand­cum­Arbitration notice of the respondent was promptly replied by the petitioner vide dated 13.09.2016, whereby, it was made clear to the respondent that since there was no stipulation of arbitration in the agreement, the proposal of the respondent to initiate arbitration under the Act is not acceptable to the petitioner. It was reiterated in the reply that the parties can resort to legal advice and help in resolving the disputes through mutual discussions. It is alleged that the respondent, instead of coming forth for mutual discussion to resolve the disputes in terms of the "Bidder MOU", preferred an application under Section 9 of the Act dated 14.12.2016 being 22145 of 2016 before the OMP Comm No.02/18 GTI Inoftel Pvt ltd v/s Infomap Pvt ltd Page No.4 of 60 District and Sessions Judge for interim measures to restrain the petitioner from using source codes for the GeoRTD software supplied by it and to direct the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 93,19,225/­. The said application of the respondent was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.09.2017 with a germane observation, inter alia as under:

For line items no. 3 & 6 i.e. development of software for intranet including training and digital maps, it was stated that such work was duly completed by it. On 03.08.2015, it deployed GeoRTD application alongwith Maps and informed the petitioner vide mail dated 10.08.2015, which in turn informed the IOCL. After the deployment, it requested the petitioner to prepare the delivery challan, since, the same was to be delivered to IOCL vide email dated 24.08.2015 meaning thereby that the claimant had developed the software and deployed the same on the server of IOCL. It also prepared the presentation and conducted the training sessions for IOCL, which is evident from the mail dated 08.06.2015 & 11.06.2015. It was stated that as per the agreement, the claimant had to provide the DATA delineated in the table in hardcopy and the petitioner was required to make the payment for the cost incurred. It was stated that it duly provided all the services in the hardcopy i.e. DVDs to the petitioner, which on the basis of the work done by the claimant received the payment from the IOCL, which fact was also informed by Mr. Mayank Bhargava, the representative of the OMP Comm No.02/18 GTI Inoftel Pvt ltd v/s Infomap Pvt ltd Page No.46 of 60 petitioner. It was stated that vide email dated 07.03.2016, the claimant requested the petitioner to release the money as per the agreement. It stated that after completion of work, the petitioner raised invoice to IOCL, which was confirmed by email dated 21.08.2015 sent by the petitioner to the claimant after which, the IOCL processed the invoice for payment and sent an email dated 26.08.2015 to the claimant and the petitioner confirming the processing of payment. It was stated that for line item no. 7 i.e. cost of procurement of maps, it duly performed the work within the stipulated time for Rs. 2,21,775/­ and intimated the petitioner, however, till date, it has not received the payment. It was stated that for line item no. 5, it was always ready and willing to continue, however, the petitioner unilaterally stopped communicating with the claimant, due to which, its manpower became idle resulting into monetary losses to it. It was stated that it has invested copious amount of time, money and effort in developing the software and making it operational and perform its obligation under the agreement diligently. It had also handed over the source code for the software, so generated by it to the petitioner on 11.02.2016 as evident from the mails dated 11.02.2016 & 12.02.2016. It repeatedly requested the petitioner to execute the licence agreement regarding the software, however, no heed was given by the petitioner to such request. It regularly requested the petitioner to release payment for the work done by it as evident from the mail dated 08.11.2015, however, the petitioner neglected to pay the amount qua the work done despite repeated reminders and unilaterally terminated the agreement vide OMP Comm No.02/18 GTI Inoftel Pvt ltd v/s Infomap Pvt ltd Page No.47 of 60 notice dated 23.02.2016 without any reasonable cause.