•c—- s^r ^pn^T^ ®xfw<i<s,f^-TOy: 'f^ W!W -SW ....^-P.^Q...-.£&)..-^-3^-^ 200 ^- sn^i qg-f^iN 'aqi sii^i •ai'iR; TOflwgfgiT an^i ^iPlfel*! •WRff»f,teStfaKAK '^sifnqan^i PEimONER: -Versds- RESPONDENTS: ¥- 3. 4. ^Vrit Petition under Articles issuance of apgropriate Writ/Writs, Jaspal Bagh Yadav.S/o late Shri Madhusucfan Bagh Yadav, aged about 42 years, Proprietor M/s. Jay Sri Shyam Road Carriers HPC Bulk POL Transporter (Transporter Code 28008640) Kalika Nagar Tifra, Bilaspur, R/o Tifra, Kalika Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (CG) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (A Govt. of India Undertalcing) through its Managing Director, Regd. Office 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai - 400020 (M.S.) Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroteum Corporation Limited, ftfladina Manzil, 2nd Floor, Medical College Road, P.B. No.129, Raipur (C.G.) Depot Manager, Hrndustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bilaspur (C.G.) 1 Sates Officer, Bilaspur Sales Area, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bitaspur (CG) 22^/227 ofthe Constitution of India for prder/Orders, Direction/Directions etc.) fr-—~!f 3^T -^WW^, s5Tfl'y'l(o, fs|<?i|t13< \^ an^?r IHW (i^if^aiittr^ SS^! W K.'ii't, W SIK^I sh*41<* TOtiwgteiaii^r -^- ^>l-4l<r!4S^ 'WRiEt '^,fet^ <F<*!^.|< Division Bench: - Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar SLnha JJ. 22-1 proditcts Were Shri K.A. Ansari, Sr. Advofc; the'petitioner. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal the respondents No.1 to 4. Heard on I.A. No.3 filed by| Arbitration and Conciliatton Act, the dispute to the sole arbitrator. The petitioner entered into| fransportation of petroleum yeare. It appears that during this parties & show cause notices irregutarities committed by him| Thereafter, contractwas terminate(d Annexure-P/16. Same order has writpetition. Preliminary objection in th^ beTialfofthe respondents mentior|ing into an agreement under which has been mentioned that as p|er arbitration clause has been inseifted between the parties that all que^l under or in relation to this arbitration of the Director (Marke^i ate with Shri tmtiyaz Ali, Advocate for w|th Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for |the respondents under Section 8 of the 1^96 (for shot 'the Act, 1996) for refemng |an agreement with the respondents for on 28th July, 2006 for period of 2 |)eriod some dispute arose between the issued to the petitioner regarding vide Annexures-P/1, P/6 and P/10. by the respondents on 11-5-2007 vide (>een questioned by the petitioner in this ife form of I.A. No.3 has been filed on therein that the parties had entered cc|ntract was awarded to the petitioner. It >r Clause 16 of the agreement, an whereby it has been entered into i^tions, disputes and differences arising shall be referred to the sole |ng) of the Company. !f such Director inseitted Agr^ement 3:eq' ^l^ll^, QTdy'Ko, fslc'iHy 31TOI 9^ !Stl+. gsTf 3II^?I a*ii<* ^giwgfeisii^r 'iii'itd'il-i tm^f' 'ff.{slet <Fai't{i< '*ii^<r{l ^73iig (Marketing) is unable or unwilling shall be referred to the sole ar| Company by such Director (Mark^t such sole arbitrator. Learned counsei for the re4l have preferred this application (1.^. clause in the agreement, thereforej, of the Act, 1996, the matter may b^ After arguing for some tint ultimately submitted that he has nc^ sote arbitrator in terms of the provi] Clause-16 ofthe agreement. But, his difficulty is that £|fl petitioner herein has incurred h^ suitable arrangement for midst, if the agreement is cancellep subject to huge financial loss agreement, therefore, Arbitrator b|i proceeding and conclude the same| Apartfrom that, the Hon'btel Brims Ltd., V. Sri Lakshmi Knit^ held that 'Section 8 of the 1996 Ak wherethere exists an arbitration a^i to refer the parties to arbitration ^imilar view has been taken by th| to act as the sole arbitrator, the matter Mtration of some other officer of the ting) in his place, who willing to act as Ipondents argued that the respondents k. No.3), as there is already arbitration in view pf the provisions of Section 8 referred to the sole arbitrator. |e, learned counsel for the petitioner I objection if the matter is referred to the ^ions of Section 8 of the Act, 1996 and transpor|tation psr entering into an agreement, the ipge financial expenditure for making of petroleum products. In the I, as his vehicles are standing, he will t>n account of cancellation of the directed to expedite the arbitration Iwithin a period of 4 months. |Apex Court in the matter of Agri Gold ^ and Wovens & others , in para-22, ^|ct is peremptory in nature. In a case ^reement, the court is under obligation i(i terms of the arbitration agreement' i^ Apex Court in the matter of Empire j Supreme Court Cases 686 i^ 3rcT ^||^|<?i.A), riTflti'ld, (sf<7lWy 4 aii^?r THW (ipfgagg^ an^I qil !t;-iM. ^s?r sn^r ^->Ti^ TCTIW^lfeTSiI^T •iii^fci'i)-)''m^f ^fs'st '(fsre^ Barve Jute Co. Ltd., and Ors., V. Jutej para-18, the Apex Court held th^l exists arbitration clause, the discretion. The Court further hel<) in the superior courts undoubtejc sh6uld not be exereised when thel In view of the above judgmjs in the agreement, the matter has| same time, we are of the opinion | the petitioner is just, fair and into consideration all aspects opportunity to both the parties, the earliest. But, at the same under obligatton to assist the needful at the earliest so he is abli Learned counsel for the arbitrator and submit his claim at respondents & they should fite arbitration proceeding at the With these words, the matt^ the matter is referred to the sold agreement dated 28th July, 2006. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^ 22007AIRSCW6930 cifrurts readonable exfeedite tirhe arttitrator, th^ir eariielst Corporation of India Ltd., & Anr. . In (t now, it is well settled that when there ordinarily would not exercise its that the power of judicial review vested |dly has wide ampiitude but the same 1'e exists an arbitration clause. and looking to the arbitration clause 1 to be referred to sole arbitrator. At the that prayer made by learned counssl for i, but it is for the arbitrator to take |>f the case and to grant reasonable the proceeding and pass award at >, the parties are also duty bound and co-operate with him and do the to pass the award at the earliest. |»titioner is at liberty to approach the |he earliest with an advance copy to the ^ir response and arbitrator shall expedite r is finally disposed of with an order that arbitrator in view of Clause 16 of the Sdf- 'Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge