respondents in the NHIDCL
earlier on 14.08.2021 issued "Notice for intention to terminate the Contract" to the petitioner
under Clause ... that though on 14.08.2021, the respondent NHIDCL issued "Notice for
intention to terminate the Contract" with regard to the said work, against which
order, either of the contracting party could terminate the
6 WP(C) No. 205/2021
contract on a prior notice of one month, therefore ... terms of the said contract could terminate the contract but the only
condition was that one month‟s period notice was to be given
terminated the Agreement by a Termination Notice
dated 22.03.2016. Prior to the said notice, EIL had issued a notice dated
03.03.2016. The said notice bears ... notice issued by EIL under
Clause 32.2 within 30 (thirty) days of receipt of
such notice, EIL shall be entitled to terminate the
Contract
fresh tenders for diet
contracts and to terminate the existing contract by giving one
month notice. Consequently, the respondent No.4 issued notice
dated ... petitioner was not terminated by following
due process of law. The petitioner was not issued any notice before
terminating the contract, which is contrary
fresh tenders for diet
contracts and to terminate the existing contract by giving one
month notice. Consequently, the respondent No.4 issued notice
dated ... petitioner was not terminated by following
due process of law. The petitioner was not issued any notice before
terminating the contract, which is contrary
fresh tenders for diet
contracts and to terminate the existing contract by giving one
month notice. Consequently, the respondent No.4 issued notice
dated ... petitioner was not terminated by following
due process of law. The petitioner was not issued any notice before
terminating the contract, which is contrary
fresh tenders for diet
contracts and to terminate the existing contract by giving one
month notice. Consequently, the respondent No.4 issued notice
dated ... petitioner was not terminated by following
due process of law. The petitioner was not issued any notice before
terminating the contract, which is contrary
fresh tenders for diet
contracts and to terminate the existing contract by giving one
month notice. Consequently, the respondent No.4 issued notice
dated ... petitioner was not terminated by following
due process of law. The petitioner was not issued any notice before
terminating the contract, which is contrary
fresh tenders for diet
contracts and to terminate the existing contract by giving one
month notice. Consequently, the respondent No.4 issued notice
dated ... petitioner was not terminated by following
due process of law. The petitioner was not issued any notice before
terminating the contract, which is contrary
fresh tenders for diet
contracts and to terminate the existing contract by giving one
month notice. Consequently, the respondent No.4 issued notice
dated ... petitioner was not terminated by following
due process of law. The petitioner was not issued any notice before
terminating the contract, which is contrary
