Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

contractors gives or offers to give (directly or indirectly) to any person any such inducement or reward as is described in this sub- para (f). However, lawful inducements and rewards to Contractors Personnel shall not entitle termination.

In any of these events or circumstances, the Employer may, upon giving 14 days' notice to the Contractor, terminate the Contract and expel the Contract from the Site. However, in the case of sub-paragraph (e) or (f), the Employer may by notice to terminate the Contract immediately.

(x) The termination of the contract, by Respondent No. 1 was illegal. If Respondent No. 1 did not desire to continue with the contract, it should have resorted to Clause 15.5, which read thus:

"15.5 Employer's Entitlement to Termination The Employer shall be entitled to terminate the Contract, at any time for the Employer's convenience, by giving notice of such termination to the Contractor. The termination shall take effect 28 days after the date of the dates on which the Contractor receives this notice or the Employer returns the Performance Security. The Employer shall not terminate the Contract under this Sub-Clause in order to execute the Works himself or to arrange for the Works to be executed by another contractor.

(iii) The petitioner was issued as many as ten Notices to Correct, under Clause 15.1 of the Contract. Details of these notices were enlisted in the notice for termination, issued on 3 rd July, 2020. It was only when, despite the ten Notices, no perceptible improvement was displayed by the petitioner, that it was decided to terminate the contract. Sub-Clause 15.2(a) of the Contract entitled Respondent No. 1 to do so. Even in its reply dated 13th July, 2020, to the termination notice dated 3rd July, 2020, the petitioner had been unable to provide any schedule for completion or any plan for improving the progress of the work.

57. The learned Single Judge has, in holding that the circumstances, which contractually entitled the respondents to invoke the bank guarantees, had not arisen, in that case, noticed Sub-Clause 4.2(d), which entitled the employer to make a claim under the performance security, for amounts to which the employer was entitled under the contract, in the event of circumstances, which entitled the employer to terminate the contract under Clause 15.2, irrespective of whether the notice of termination had, or had not, been given. This is the clause which has been invoked by Respondent No. 1, specifically, in the present case. The learned Single Judge has held that the circumstances, in which the respondent could invoke the performance security, having been contractually delineated in Clause 4.2, the respondent was bound by the said clause. Sans the existence of such circumstances, therefore respondent would, in the opinion of the learned Single Judge, not be entitled to invoke the performance security, in the form of the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioner. The fact that none of the said circumstances existed, in the case before him, constitutes one of the grounds on which the learned Single Judge granted relief, in Larsen & Toubro Ltd1.