CWP No.18777 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18777 of 2010 Date of Decision: 18.11.2010 **** M/s. Nangal Gas Service . . . . Petitioner VS. Indian Oil Corporation and Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Ms. Puneeta Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is an LPG Distributor, who is aggrieved by the communication dated 12.03.2010 (Annexure P1) imposing the penalty of `22,05,000 on account of the alleged major irregularities, as well as the order dated 28.09.2010 (Annexure P2) whereby petitioner’s review applications has been turned down by the Indian Oil Corporation. (2). While calling upon the respondents, vide order dated October 14, 2010, it was directed, as an interim measure, that in case the petitioner CWP No.18777 of 2010.doc - 2 – deposits `10 lacs, its gas supply shall not be disconnected. (3). The petitioner has complied with the said order and has deposited `10 lacs with the respondent- Corporation. (4). Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation points out that the petitioner has got an efficacious alternative remedy as the Distributorship Agreement between the parties, contains an ‘arbitration’ clause. (5). The ‘arbitration’ clause indeed is not disputed by the petitioner also. (6). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the above-stated alternative remedy of Arbitration. Since, prima facie, there exists a dispute between the parties referable for adjudication to the Arbitrator and to ensure its speedy disposal, it is directed that the Indian Oil Corporation and/or the petitioner shall place a copy of this writ petition before the Director, who shall be at liberty to proceed with the arbitral proceedings and/or appoint another Arbitrator as per the ‘arbitration’ clause. The Arbitrator shall make an endeavour to decide the dispute as early as possible and preferably within CWP No.18777 of 2010.doc - 3 – a period of three months from the date of filing of the claim. (7). However, during the pendency of the Arbitration proceedings, the interim direction issued by this Court vide order dated October 14, 2010, shall continue to operate. (8). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 18.11.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE