IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36381 of 2010(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- CHENGALATH MOTOR FUEL AGENCY, INDIAN OIL DEALER, PAVARATTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER A.V.YOUSUF. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL, SMT.MANJU RAJAN, SRI.K.S.ARUN BABU, SMT.JAISY MATHEW. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400 051, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (RETAIL SALES) APPELLATE AUTHORITY, INDINA OIL CORPORATION LTD., INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400 051. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., KOCHI-682 036. BY ADV. MR.E.K. NANDAKUMAR, SC, IOC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 36381 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a dealer of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the IOC' for short). The dealership was terminated by Ext.P8 order dated 26.7.2010 issued by the third respondent finding the petitioner guilty of adulteration of products and for difference in stock beyond the permissible limits. As suggested by the third respondent himself in Ext.P8, the petitioner moved the second respondent in appeal. By Ext.P11 order passed on 26.10.2010, the said appeal was rejected. Hence this writ petition, challenging Ext.P8 and P11 orders. 2. The petitioner contends that the contentions set out by him in Ext.P7 reply have not been considered by the third respondent and that the petitioner was also not given an opportunity to explain the difference noticed in the stock. As regards the adulteration aspect, the petitioner contends that the same sample when analysed thrice yielded different results and therefore the report of analysis could not have formed the basis of an order of termination. 3. Paragraph 67 of Ext.P14 agreement entered into between the petitioner and the IOC provides for resolution of disputes and/or differences of any nature whatsoever regarding any right, liability, act or omission arising out of or in relation to the agreement by arbitration. The WPC No.36381/2010 2 agreement thus provides for resolution of disputes between the contracting parties to be resolved by arbitration. In such circumstances, the mere fact that an appeal was taken to the Executive Director (Retail sale) pursuant to Ext.P8 order, as suggested in Ext.P8 itself, cannot in my opinion result in the petitioner being deprived of his right to move the Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute. Faced with that situation, Sri. Mohan Pulickkal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as that the petitioner has now been called upon to vacate the site of the outlet even before the petitioner is in a position to invoke the arbitration clause and move the District Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, the petitioner will be put to serious prejudice. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in such circumstances, the respondents may be directed to maintain the status quo as on today for a reasonable period of time to enable the petitioner to invoke the arbitration clause and to move the District Court for interim relief. 4. Per contra, Sri. E.K.Nandakumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the IOC submitted that the petitioner has got adequate remedies under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act including the right to move the District Court for interim measures under section 9 thereof and that the company will manage the outlet till the Arbitrator takes a decision in the matter, provided the petitioner invokes the arbitration clause and take WPC No.36381/2010 3 steps to have the dispute resolved by arbitration within one month from today. In the light of the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side, I am persuaded to take a view that the petitioner should invoke the arbitration clause contained in paragraph 67 of Ext.P14 agreement and take steps under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act which entitles the petitioner to move the District Court for interim measures. I accordingly decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition on that ground that the petitioner has got an effective remedy by way of arbitration. It is clarified that in the event of the petitioner invoking the arbitration clause within one month from today, the respondents shall not appoint any other person as the dealer and shall manage the outlet as a company operated outlet till the Arbitrator passes the award. The contentions of both sides on the merits are kept open. The Arbitrator shall decide the dispute untrammelled by the observations made by the appellate authority in Ext.P11 order. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.36381/2010 4 WPC No.36381/2010 5