HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COMMUNICATIONS LTD Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 4.7.2007. The learned Single Judge by virtue of the impugned judgement has sustained the award dated 30.3.2007.

(2.) THE background in which the present controversy has arisen is briefly as follows:

(3.) THIS brings us to the other aspect of the matter whereby, Mr. De has argued before us that no termination could have taken place without affording an opportunity to the appellant. It was submitted that a written notice had to be issued in terms of Clause 22 of the general terms & conditions which in this case admittedly had not been issued by the respondent. The question, therefore, is: whether clause 22 is at all applicable in the present case. According to us the answer to this has to be in the negative because a bare reading of clause 22 of the general terms & conditions make it clear to us that the said clause gets triggered only, when a purchase order is issued. For this purpose, clause 5 of the APO has to be read in conjunction with clause 22 of the general terms and conditions of the contract.