1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 45 of 2008 Shree Service Station .. Petitioner versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. .. Respondent ... Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b Ashok Purohit for the petitioner. Mr.Sunil Gangan i/b RMG Law Associates for the respondent. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 10th June 2008 P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the award dated 1st August 2007 rendered by the sole arbitrator. 2. The respondent is an oil marketing company. The petitioner was appointed as a dealer by the respondent under an agreement dated 28th April 1992. 2 The petitioner was found to have been committed breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement of dealership. The agreement of dealership was therefore terminated after a notice. The petitioner challenged the termination before the learned arbitrator. By an award dated 1st August 2007, the petitioner’s claim was rejected and that award is impugned in this petition. 3. One of the allegations against the petitioner was of adulteration. The samples taken from the underground tank of the petitioner were found to be not as per the specifications. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the test report of the laboratory was not furnished to him and hence the test reports were admissible and ought not to have been looked into and relied upon by the learned arbitrator. Countering the submission learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the minutes of the arbitral meeting held on 13th December 2006 and 3rd January 2007. The minutes disclose discloses that the test report was filed before the learned arbitrator and a copy thereof was given to the petitioner on 13th December 2006. The arguments of the petitioner were heard on 3rd January 2007 and written submissions were filed by him on 18th January 2007. The test report was 3 filed before the learned arbitrator and the copy thereof was also furnished to the petitioner before his arguments. It may be noted that u/s.19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, neither the Code of Civil Procedure nor the provisions of Evidence Act apply to the arbitration proceedings. Since the report was filed and copy therefore was furnished to the petitioner before his arguments, it had a reasonable opportunity of meeting it. The petitioner never made an application disputing the correctness of the laboratory report nor asked for examination/cross examination of the technician and government laboratory which had tested the sample. In the circumstances, in my view, the grievance which is presently made by the petitioner for not having given a reasonable opportunity and inadmissibility of the report is only a technical objection without any substance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the learned arbitrator misinterpreted the previous award. No specific point of misinterpretation was pointed out. In the circumstances I am unable to hold that there has been any misinterpretation of the previous award. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further 4 submitted that proper issues were not framed by the arbitrator He also submitted that show cause notice was defective, and the award was unsustainable as the termination was held to be valid on the grounds other than the grounds on which show cause notice was issued. The objection is only stated to be rejected. 6. No other point was urged. Petition is accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J)