IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No. 898 of 2008 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.2636/2008 Dated 26/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ C.N.SATHISH KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN, CHITTAKKARA HOUSE, KOTTANELLUR P.O THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 672. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, INDANE AREA OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR. COCHIN - 682 036. 2. THE CHIEF L.P.G.MANAGER, KERALA STATE OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR COCHIN 682 036. 3. THE DIRECTOR (MARKETING), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., HEAD OFFICE, INDIAN OIL BHAWAN, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI - 400 051. 4. JAI RAMACHANDRAN (HON'BLE ARBITRATOR) SENIOR MANAGER, ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL WING, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., HEAD OFFICE, INDIAN OIL BHAWAN, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDAR EAST, MUMBAI-400 051. W.A.NO.898/08 5. SMT.ASHA RAJAN, PROPRIETRIX, M/S.TRINITY INDANE SERVICES, MAIN ROAD, VELLANGALLORE, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN - 609 662. R1 TO R4 BY SHRI E.K. NANDAKUMAR, SC, IOC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ & K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W. A. NO. 898 OF 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the10th April, 2008 JUDGMENT K. M.JOSEPH, J: The appellant is the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition was filed seeking for a direction to the fourth respondent Arbitrator to take up Ext.P11 with notice to the petitioner and to consider and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. Ext.P11 was filed by the petitioner to get himself impleaded in the proceedings before the Arbitrator. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. In doing so, the learned Single Judge found that there was no provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act or any decision empowering the Arbitrator to implead a third party in an arbitration proceedings. The learned Single Judge further noted that the request made by the appellant before the Division Bench to issue appropriate direction to include the petitioner also in the arbitration proceedings, has been rejected by the Division Bench as per Annexure A1 Order. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner is before us in this Writ Appeal. 2. We heard Shri S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this is a case where, having regard to the facts, the appellant is a necessary party for taking a decision on Ext.P11 pending before the Arbitrator. WA.NO.898/08 2 3. It is to be noted that this is a case where there was a dealership in favour of the fifth respondent. On a complaint filed by the appellant, the dealership came to be cancelled on the basis of a Report of an Enquiry Commission appointed by the Indian Oil Corporation. The fifth respondent took up the matter before this Court which was dismissed finding that there is an arbitration clause and the fifth respondent was relegated to pursue that remedy. Even though the matter was carried in Writ Appeal by both the appellant as also the fifth respondent, the Division Bench also found favour with the course adopted by the learned Single Judge relegating the fifth respondent to the remedy under the arbitration clause. The arbitration proceedings is going on. In Annexure A1, though the appellant moved the Division Bench which decided the Appeal filed by the fifth respondent for a clarification that the appellant also should be a party in the arbitration proceedings, the Court was not inclined to grant the said relief. It was made clear that it was open to the appellant to approach the appropriate authority. 4. The appellant was not in a position to point out any provision under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act under which he had a right. He is not in a position to point out any authority for the proposition that this Court can direct to consider the prayer of the appellant to implead the appellant. The arbitration clause apparently provides for arbitration between the parties to the agreement. Admittedly, the appellant is not a party to the arbitration clause. In such circumstances, seeking a direction in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution by virtue of the agreement between the parties, to consider such an application, is clearly beyond WA.NO.898/08 3 the scope of the Arbitration Clause. Therefore, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.