Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(22) Referring to the decision rendered in the matter of State of Keral -Vs- Zoom Developers Private Limited and Others, (2009) 4 SCC 563, Mr. Verma argued that the relationship between the consortium partners was on principal-to-principal basis and the consortium agreement was just to spelt out the work allocation and the responsibility. As per Clause 11 of the agreement, the agreement would be effective from the dated of award of the contract, therefore, it was not a defective agreement. In Zoom Developers (supra), the consortium agreement spelt out the work allocation and the responsibility of the each member of the consortium. It made the consortium responsible jointly and severally for implementation of the project. As per Para-51 of the judgment, the Clause dealing with the "relationship of the parties" merely stated that till the formation of SPC, each member shall be related to each other on principal-to-principal basis. The Supreme Court said that this is because the consortium is formed to make a bid for this project only and till the formation of SPC and till the consortium becomes a successful bidder, the parties relate to each other on principal-to-principal basis. The said argument is altogether on different aspect. In the present case, as we have held supra, on the basis of specified criterion in the consortium agreement, each consortium partner was bound to know the price bid quoted or to be quoted by the consortium leader and on this account we have held that "dual" or "multiple" consortium agreement was not possible as it would be collusive and unfair demolishing the aspect of competitiveness. Therefore, the logic of the agreement being only on principal-to-principal basis cannot be applied in the present case in view of the specified terms of the consortium agreement.