Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

action on the part of the respondent - Corporation, the writ applicant is here before this Court with this writ application seeking to quash the impugned notice of the termination of contract.

9 In response to the notice issued by this Court to the Corporation, the Corporation has appeared through its counsel Mr. Ajay Mehta. The stance of the Corporation, as reflected from the rely, is as under:

"7 It say and submit that the contract entered into between the parties specifically entitles the respondent Corporation to terminate the contract after giving 30 days' notice without assigning any reason. In the present case, the notice was issued on 1st April, 2019 and vide rig de­hiring certificate dated 30th April, 2019 i.e. on completion of the period of one month the termination is complete. The petitioner rig had been released and the contract stands duly terminated. A copy of the rig de­hiring certificate duly countersigned by rig in charge of the petitioner is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE­R/l. I say and submit that in view of the aforesaid, the contract stands concluded and there is absolutely no question of the petitioner being entitled to any mandatory relief requiring the respondent Corporation to hire the rig as per the contract. The present contract is/was a determinable contract and the same having been terminated, there is absolutely no question of the petitioner being entitled to mandatory specific performance of such a contract in view of the provisions of section 14 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. I say and submit that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the termination and feels that the termination was not in accordance with law, the petitioner can always raise a claim for damages. However, there is absolutely no question of the petitioner being entitled to challenge the termination of the contract and seek mandatory performance thereof.

9. With reference to paragraph No.5, since the rates were not matched down by the contractor and since as per the provisions of the contract, it was open for the respondent Corporation to terminate the contract, termination notice dated 1St April, 2019 was issued as per clause No.5(v) of notification of award as well as clause No.2.4(v) and clause No.29.3 of the Special Conditions of Contract which stipulates as under:

Clause No.5 of Notification of Award "The operators shall have the option to terminate the contract any time before expiry of the term period of one year by giving 30 days' prior notice in writing."

Operator shall have the option to terminate the Contract at an time before the expiry of the firm period of One year by giving 30 days prior notice in writing.

C/SCA/7814/2019 JUDGMENT Further as per SCC clause No. 29.3 of Contract Agreement, it is clearly indicated that "In addition to provisions contained elsewhere in the contract and notwithstanding the provisions stated in clause 18 of General conditions of the contract the operator (ONGC) shall have the right to Terminate this contract by giving Thirty (30) days 5 advance notice to contractor without assigning any reasons whatsoever and no costs or damages or any compensation shall be payable by the operator except for the work already done by the contractor".

(iv) This contract shall terminate upon expiry of the contract.

Or Under the circumstances referred to Under clause 2.4 (iii) above

(v) The Operator shall have the option to terminate this contract at any time before the expiry of the firm period of one year by giving 30 days prior notice in writing."

82 With regard to the right to terminate the contract, as contained in the Notification of Award dated 1st December 2018 is concerned, Mr. Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant has placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. Nilofer Siddiqui reported in 2015 (16) SCC 125. It was a case of termination of distributorship of LPG. The Supreme Court, while agreeing with the contention advanced by the learned counsel C/SCA/7814/2019 JUDGMENT appearing for the respondent that the condition No.8 of the letter of allotment was unconscionable as it gave IOCL an unfettered right to terminate the distributorship without assigning any reasons, the Supreme Court observed as under: