IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17690 of 2011(I) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- HELENY POULOSE, W/O.POULOSE, AREEKKAL HOUSE, MAIKAD P.O., KARIYAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. M/S.INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN-36. 2. THE CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER, M/S.INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN-682 036. 3. THE MANAGER, M/S.INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., COCHIN TERMINAL, IRUMBANAM, ERNAKULAM - 682 036. R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.17690/2011 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE GIVEN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.29/10/2009. P2: COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 23/11/2009. P3: COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE GIVEN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 29/09/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17690 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a tanker lorry bearing registration No.KL-07 J 8875. She had entered into a transportation contract with the Indian Oil Corporation. When the petitioner's vehicle was inspected on 22.11.2008, it was found that it was fitted with an unauthorised connection from the 12000 litres tank to its fuel tank. Thereupon the contract was terminated, the petitioner was blacklisted and criminal proceedings were also initiated against her. Long afterwards, petitioner sent Ext.P1 letter dated 29.10.2009 to the second respondent demanding repayment of the cash security of Rs.50,000/- deposited by her and also for the issue of a consent letter to enable her to revoke the bank guarantee furnished by her. The Chief Operations Manager of the first respondent thereupon sent Ext.P2 letter dated 23.11.2009 in reply wherein after referring to the above facts, he informed the petitioner that the Indian Oil Corporation is in the process of arriving at the loss suffered by the Corporation on the account of the petitioner's acts and refund, if any, will be made upon completion of that exercise. It was also stated that in case the loss assessed is more than the amount of security, a claim to that W.P.(C) No.17690/2011 2 extent will be made on the petitioner. This writ petition is filed contending that though more than one year and 7 months have passed thereafter, till date, the respondents have not informed the petitioner of the quantum of loss suffered by them. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to complete the process referred to in Ext.P2 and to refund to her the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, learned standing counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation on instructions submitted that on noticing the unauthorised extension from the 12000 litres tank to the fuel tank of the petitioner's truck, the contract was terminated and she was blacklisted. The learned standing counsel also submitted that satisfactory performance of the contract is a condition precedent for return of the security deposit, that the performance of the contract by the petitioner was not satisfactory and therefore, the respondents are entitled to forfeit the entire amount of security. The learned standing counsel further submitted that under the provisions of the transportation contract entered into between the petitioner and the Indian Oil Corporation, the dispute which the petitioner has now raised is a dispute which can be resolved by arbitration and therefore, W.P.(C) No.17690/2011 3 the petitioner should have taken steps to have the dispute resolved by arbitration. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not have a copy of the agreement and therefore she is not in a position to invoke the arbitration clause. From the averments made at the Bar, it is evident that the contract between the petitioner and the Indian Oil Corporation contains an arbitration clause which provides for resolution of the dispute raised by the petitioner by arbitration. I am therefore of the opinion that the petitioner should take steps in that regard. I accordingly dispose of the with petition with a direction to the respondents to furnish to the petitioner a notorised copy of the agreement between the petitioner and the Indian Oil Corporation within 2 weeks from today, on the petitioner approaching the second respondent. Thereupon, it will be open to the petitioner to take steps to have the dispute resolved by arbitration. The contentions of both sides on the merits are kept open. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.