Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: tulip telecom in M/S Tulip Telecom Ltd (Formerly Tuli It ... vs Secretary The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2013Matching Fragments
07/08/2013 Petitioners herein have challenged the order-dated 6.5.2013
- Annexure P/1, by which a contract granted to them by the MP State Electronics Development Corporation Limited, for the purpose of supplying, installing and operation of MP State Wide Area Network has been cancelled.
2- Petitioners claim to be a company duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act and engaged in providing telecom services, data centres, system integration and it is said that they have branches and offices throughout the country. It is said that SWAN - an infrastructure project under the National e-Governance Programme of the Government of India, is a Joint Venture Project of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Under this Project, minimum 2 mbps connectivity is to be Writ Petition No :: 10122 / 2013 M/s Tulip Telecom Limited and another Vs. State of MP and others.
4- Shri Kuldeep Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioners, invited out attention to the terms and conditions of the contract; the show-cause notice - Annexure P/12 issued to them on 2.4.2013; the reply to the same submitted by the petitioners; the discrepancies pointed out in the show-cause notice, and tried to demonstrate before this Court that no such discrepancy or breach of the contract is established and, therefore, in an arbitrary and illegal manner, the entire action is taken. Learned counsel referred to certain documents like Annexure P/14 dated 24.4.2013, issued by the Secretary in the Information and Technology Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh, to say that all the work in connection with the contract was being properly executed by the petitioners, more than 90% of the work is already over and, therefore, the decision all of a sudden taken to terminate the contract is an arbitrary and illegal decision. Learned counsel referred to certain documents available on record, particularly the terms and conditions of the contract Writ Petition No :: 10122 / 2013 M/s Tulip Telecom Limited and another Vs. State of MP and others.
and the letter - Annexure P/11 dated 16.1.2013, issued by the Senior General Manager of the Project, to say that in a pre-determined manner the entire action is taken. Learned counsel took us through these documents to emphasize that the breach of contract alleged in the show- cause notice and found to be existing in the impugned order - Annexure P/1 is an imaginary and arbitrary decision taken when infact there is no breach.
5- Shri Kuleep Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that when an action has been taken in a totally arbitrary manner, the objection of the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable is not correct. He invited out attention to the following judgments: State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P.V. Hanumantha Rao (D) through LRs and Another, 2003(8) AD (SC) 481; ABL International Limited and Another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and others, 2004 (1) AD (SC) 122; Union of India and others Vs. Tantia Construction Private Limited, (2011) 5 SCC 697; Harbanslal Sahnia and Another Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others, (2003) 2 SCC 107; and, a Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Chandana Kedia Sole Proprietor, M/s Adinath Industries Vs. Union of India and Another, 2010 (2) AD (Delhi) 757, to say that even in a dispute pertaining to termination of contract, when arbitration clause or an arbitration agreement is available, the jurisdiction of the writ court is not taken away. It is said that if an action is taken which is shown to be in violation of the fundamental rights available to a person and when breach of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution is established from the material available on record, the entire process is vitiated. Learned counsel says that if a party is unreasonably dealt with or is dealt with in an unfair manner, the requirement of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution are violated and in such cases the existence of alternate remedy of arbitration cannot be a ground for dismissing a writ petition. He invited out attention to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia (supra) to say that even in the light of arbitration clause being Writ Petition No :: 10122 / 2013 M/s Tulip Telecom Limited and another Vs. State of MP and others.
7- Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, submits that under the agreement in question, Clause 7.1.4 contemplates an arbitration clause, wherein the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has been made applicable. Learned counsel invites our attention to the application filed by the petitioners under section 9 of the Act before the 9th Additional District Judge (Arbitration Court), Bhopal to say that the petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause and in paragraph 9 of the said application has admitted that the petitioners are invoking the arbitration clause in the agreement. Learned counsel further submits that after withdrawing the said application and during the pendency of this Writ Petition No :: 10122 / 2013 M/s Tulip Telecom Limited and another Vs. State of MP and others.