TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4) The appellants herein were respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the sole respondent herein was the writ petitioner in the writ petition before the High Court out of which this appeal arises. 5) Appellant No.1 is the Government Company called Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the IOC"). The IOC is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of several petroleum products such as petrol, HighSpeed Diesel (HSD), lubricants etc. The IOC has set up several retail outlets all over the country for sale of their products through their retail dealers. 6) On 31.08.1989, the IOC appointed respondent as its retail dealer for sale of petroleum products. A dealership agreement (Annexure P12) was accordingly executed between the IOC and the respondent in this regard. 7) The respondent had to carry on the business as per the terms and conditions of the dealership agreement. The respondent accordingly set up his petrol pump in the name and style of M/s Lakshmi Service Station at GST Road, Kooteripattu Town (Tamil Nadu) and started selling petroleum products of IOC. 8) On 01.08.2008, Deputy Inspector of Labour (Weights & Measures) carried out an inspection of the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....012, the High Court dismissed the application and upheld the award. The operative part of the order reads as under: "In the result, the arbitral award dated 14.10.2011 made by the third respondent is confirmed with liberty given to the dealer to approach IOC with request in writing for continuation of distributorship and for supply and sale and with further direction issued to IOC to duly consider such request of the first respondent/dealer within one week from the date of receipt of such written request. The OP filed by the IOC and the application filed by the dealer are accordingly disposed of." 15) The aforesaid order attained finality, as neither of the parties filed any appeal against the aforesaid order. 16) The respondent then on 20.02.2013 filed a representation to the appellant (IOC) requesting them for resumption of the supply of fuel to him pursuant to the directions of the award. By letter dated 13.03.2013, the IOC rejected the representation assigning the reasons for rejection of the respondent's representation. 17) The respondent felt aggrieved by the rejection of his representation, filed writ petition before the Madras High Court under Article ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el for the respondent. 22) Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel while assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned order mainly urged three submissions. 23) In the first place, learned senior counsel urged that the well reasoned order passed by the Single Judge (writ Court), which rightly resulted in upholding of the respondent's termination letter of dealership should have been upheld by the Division Bench. According to learned counsel, there was no case made out for any interference by the Division Bench in the order of the Single Judge, who rightly dismissed the respondent's writ petition. 24) In the second place, learned counsel urged that the approach of the Division Bench in dealing with the issue in question itself was faulty inasmuch as it wrongly proceeded on the assumption that the award dated 14.10.2011 had set aside the termination letter dated 13.03.2013 and restored the respondent's dealership in his favour. 25) Learned counsel pointed out that on proper interpretation of the reasoning and the operative part of the award, it is clear that the Arbitrator recorded a categorical finding against the respondent that breaches alleged by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....10.2011 and the order of the Single Judge which upheld the award and what it actually decide, in our opinion, a plain reading of these orders indicates that the Arbitrator, in clear terms, held against the respondent that he committed breaches of the dealership agreement and as a result of this categorical finding, the Arbitrator, in substance, upheld the letter of termination of dealership calling for stern action against the respondent. Indeed, once the breaches were held made out, the only consequence that ensued from such finding was to uphold the letter of termination of dealership agreement. Since arbitration clause 69 (c) empowers the Arbitrator to pass any order in the arbitration proceedings, the Arbitrator and so also the Single Judge while upholding the award considered it proper to grant liberty to the respondent to file a representation to the IOC for reconsideration of his case for restoration of his dealership. Such liberty could never be construed to mean that the Arbitrator had either set aside the letter of termination of the respondent's dealership or directed to restore the supply of fuel to the respondent. 35) The respondent, pursuant to the liberty gra....