Allowed

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. M/S Sahid Dharamveer Filling and Another

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2021A227/515/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these writ petition matters, the High Court allowed the petitions filed by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd under Article 226/227. The Court directed the Civil Judge to decide an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act and passed procedural orders regarding the withdrawal of the suit and disposal of the reply to the show cause notice.

What did the court decide?

Directed Civil Judge to decide the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act forthwith; order on withdrawal application within one week; department to decide reply within one month after hear

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S… — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 515 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Respondent :- M/S Sahid Dharamveer Filling And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama has been filed by Sri Asim Kumar Singh Advocate on behalf of respondent.

¶6

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Asim Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

¶7

(a) To direct the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Agra to decide the application NO.37Ga filed by the petitioner-Corporation under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, forthwith;

¶8

(b) to set a side the order dated 10.7.2018 passed by the Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Agra;

¶9

(c) issue any other suitable, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;

¶10

(d) award costs in favour of the applicant throughout.

¶11

Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner-Indian Oil Corporation had appointed various retail outlet dealers for sale of petroleum products. After selection of respondent No.1 as a dealer, an agreement was executed between the petitioner-corporation, Smt. Shrimati Devi and Km. Babita on 24.03.2011 for retail sale petrol, diesel and other petroleum products. An inspection of the retail outlet of the plaintiff/respondent was carried out on 13.06.2017 by a team nominated by the District Magistrate, Agra consisting of various officials. During the inspection of the retail outlet of the

¶12

plaintiffs/respondents, it was found that the pulsar of 1 nozzle of Motor Spirit (petrol), bearing Sl. No.1206P579 was suspected to be tampered as there was some extra soldering in the pulsar and based on the aforesaid inspection report, a fact finding letter dated 14.06.2017 was issued to the respondent No.1 asking her to submit her reply. At the time of inspection, the pulsar card was seized and sent by the petitioner-corporation to the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), i.e., M/s Gilbarco Veeder Root for testing at their lab as per the Marketing Disciplinary Guidelines. Thereafter a report was submitted by the M/s Gilbarco Veeder Root on 28.3.20218 mentioning therein that pulsar assembly is not found in conformance with the Gilbaro Standard Design and further reported that there is an attempt to tamper the pulsar card to alter the delivery. After perusal of the same, the competent authority namely Deputy General Manager (Retail Sales), Agra Division Agra. issued a show cause notice to the respondents on 20.6.2018 along with copy of report.

¶13

It is argued by Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that on issuance of show cause notice, an original suit was preferred by the petitioner being Original Suit No.982 of 2018. Along with suit, an application for grant of interim injunction was also filed. It is argued that the trial court wholly illegally granted ex-parte injunction. It is argued that the reliefs sought by the plaintiff-respondents are clearly barred by Section 14(1) of the Specific Relief Act. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgement in support of his submission reported in (1991) 1 SCC 533 (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Amritsar Gas Service and others) . It is argued that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the Apex Court in the aforesaid matter. It is further argued that this Court in the case Matter Under Article 339 of 2021 ( Indian Oil

¶14

Corporation Ltd Vs.M/S J. Lal Filling Station And Another) , in which similar controversy has been involved, dealt with this aspect in great detail. It is argued that in view of the aforesaid, suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents itself was not maintainable.

¶15

At this point, Sri Asim Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submits that his client will withdraw the suit filed by them by moving an appropriate application before the Court below within a period of ten days from today. He further submits that a reply to the show cause notice dated 20.06.2018 has already been submitted by the respondents on 26.08.2018 and prays that a direction be given to the petitioner-defendant to decide the aforesaid reply expeditiously.

¶16

In view of the undertaking and submission of Sri Asim Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, the Court below is directed to pass appropriate order on the withdrawal application of the plaintiffs-respondents within one week from the date of filing of withdrawal application of the plaintiffs-respondents, who undertakes to file it within ten days. the petitionerCorporation is directed to pass appropriate orders on the reply filed the respondents in accordance with law within period of one month, after providing opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs-respondents.

¶17

With the aforesaid direction, the petition is allowed. Order Date :- 10.2.2021 saqlain

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. M/S Sahid Dharamveer Filling and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. M/S Sahid Dharamveer Filling and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munna Lal and 2 Others Vs Ram Ratan and 31 Others

M/S Jyoti Engineering Works Vs District Judge Allahabad

Imtiyaz Ahamad Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Prabha Shankar Shukla Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) and 2 Others

Sanjay Ram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gulam Abdul Qadir Alvi Vs Civil Judge Junior Division Baasi and 7 Others