The termination of the contract was found to be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, and no relief could be granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act") seeks pre-arbitral interim reliefs.

Facts

2. On 25th March, 2020 a notice, inviting tenders, was circulated by Respondent No.1, for providing of Human Resource Outsourcing Services for 10 months and 30 days. The petitioner was the successful bidder and, consequent thereon, the contract was awarded to the petitioner on 23rd June, 2020, to provide 76 Data Entry Operators and 90 Multi-Tasking Staff for the period from 1st July, 2020 to 30th May, 2021. The petitioner accepted the award of the contract and, as per the recitals in the petition, provided the requisite services by way of supply of staff.

3. The petition raises a grievance regarding the respondent having required the petitioner to furnish performance bank guarantees which, according to the petition, were not contemplated in the contract between the parties. That aspect, however, does not seriously impact these proceedings, or the relief sought herein. Accordingly, I do not propose to travel down that path.

4. We may now proceed directly to 6th October, 2020, when the respondent addressed a communication to the petitioner, informing the petitioner that certain complaints had been received regarding the manner in which the petitioner was discharging its services and seeking certain clarifications in that regard. Though the petitioner refutes the allegations in the complaint, that, too, cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 9 of the 1996 Act. The petitioner, however, responded on 9th October, 2020, denying the allegations against it.

5. On 29th October, 2020, the following communication was issued by the respondent to the petitioner:

"INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001

F. No. Admn. 2(2)/2020-Estt.II (Pt.)

Dated the: 29th October, 2020

To

M/S Gaurav Enterprises,

A-467, Gali No. 2,

Meet Nagar, New Delhi-110094.

Subject: Cancellation of contract for providing the services of 76. DEOs and 90 MTSs at ICAR Hqrs-reg.

Contract No. GEMC-511687756040636

Bid/RA/PRNO. GEM/2020/B614774

Sir,

Kindly refer to the Council's letter of even number dated 06.10.2020 wherein clarifications were sought on the irregularities reported against your firm in the process of deployment of manpower in the Council. Your clarification dated 09.10.2020 in response to the Council's letter has not been found satisfactory by the Competent Authority and accordingly, the Competent Authority of the Council has ordered cancellation of the aforementioned contract with your firm. However, your firm shall continue to provide manpower services for next 45 days or any further communication from the Council whichever is earlier.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Neha Agarwal)

Under Secretary (Admn.)

Ph. No. 23386978"

6. The petitioner asserts that the aforesaid communication was completely unreasoned in nature and did not point out any default on the part of the petitioner. As such, contends the petitioner, such a termination of the contractual relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was unsustainable in law. Asserting this position, the petitioner addressed a legal notice, to the respondent, on 2nd November, 2020, alleging the termination of the contract to be illegal and therefore, exhorting the respondent to allow the petitioner to complete rendering its services for the originally fixed tenure of the contract.

7. The respondent replied on 16th December, 2020, denying the request of the petitioner and stating that the contract stood validly terminated.

8. On 6th January, 2021, fresh bids were invited by the respondent for the services which were being rendered by the petitioner. Nevertheless, for the interregnum, the respondent requested the petitioner to continue to render services till 28th February, 2021 vide communication dated 18th January, 2021. That period was subsequently extended, and the petitioner, as such, continues to render the said services to the Respondent No. 1. Resp