“8. The other aspect that is of material importance is that the entire basis for placing the petitioner in the "Holiday List" is founded upon the allegations qua the performance or non-performance with regard to the contracts which were awarded to the petitioner. Therefore, it is not proper or correct on the part of IOCL even to suggest that placement in the "Holiday List" is entirely a noncontractual matter unrelated with the contracts awarded to the petitioner. I fail to see how the very allegations, on the basis of which the petitioner has been placed on the "Holiday List", will not figure in the deliberations before the arbitrator, who would be considering the disputes between the parties in their entirety as directed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in his order dated 17.03.2003. Furthermore, the Committee that was constituted comprised entirely of officers of IOCL. In these circumstances, it would have been proper and appropriate for IOCL to have held its hands and waited for an adjudication by the arbitrator on the entire question of commission of breaches, etc., including the termination of the contracts. The determination by the arbitrator would have settled all these issues. As pointed out above, if the arbitrator held against the petitioner, and found it to be in default, then IOCL would be entitled to place the petitioner in the "Holiday List". In such an eventuality, IOCL could not be faulted. I am in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject matter of arbitration and the question of placement in the Holiday List are intertwined and cannot be put into separate compartments. The records of the case itself reveal that the placement of the petitioner in the holiday List is not on account of reasons outside the contractual obligations of the parties.”
