Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. The contention of the counsel for the respondent with respect to Claim No.3 is that the claim is per se contrary to Clause 9.1.3 of the Agreement. As per the said Clause, petitioner was to hand over all software source codes to ECHS one month prior to the expiry of the Contract. The requirement underscores the need for the petitioner and the respondent to stop work in the last month of the Contract so as to hand over the requisite softwares, etc. to the respondent. Clause 9.1.3 read with Clause 7.1.3 which records that the petitioner needed 25 days to produce the cards substantiates that the applications for supply of cards were to stop one month prior to 31.05.2015. Vide email dated 28.04.2015, respondent had reiterated that the Agreement would expire on 31.05.2015 and it had no intent to extend the Contract period. The petitioner was thus to hand over the software, etc. to the respondent within one month. Thus, no applications were approved with effect from the month of May 2015 in terms of the Clauses of the Agreement. Without prejudice, it is argued that the petitioner has not even produced anything on record to show that, in fact, 49,500 cards remained unutilized due to withholding of the application forms. A specific question was put to the petitioner‟s witness during cross-examination, but nothing was brought out in the evidence to substantiate the claim. Attention is drawn to Question Nos.13 to 16 of the evidence recorded by the Tribunal on 11.12.2017. It is further argued that the cards supplied for the year 2013- 2014 were around 3,21,259 while those for the year 2014-2015 were around 3,21,303. Thus, the monthly average was around 26,700 cards and it cannot be contended that the petitioner suffered loss on account of non-forwarding of the approved applications in the last month.