Arjuman Firoz Khan Sole Proprietor of Ms Autofill vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

509.CARAP.407.2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.407 OF 2025

Arjuman Firoz Khan Sole Proprietor Of M/s Autofill ….Applicant Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ....Respondent

¶5

Mr. Rushabh Sheth a/w. Sayeed Mulani & Tushar Agrawal, Advocates for Applicant.

¶6

Mr. Gopalkrishna Nayak a/w. Anuj Jaiswal i/b. Flavia Legal, Advocates for Respondent.

¶7

CORAM: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

¶8

DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2025

¶9

ORDER :

¶10

This Application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( “the Act” ), seeking appointment of an arbitrator in connection with disputes and differences that are said to have arisen between the parties under a Petrol/Diesel Dealer Agreement dated May 27, 2019. The arbitration agreement is contained in Clause 66 (found at Page 32 of the Application) of the Agreement. In the interest of brevity, the arbitration agreement is not being extracted here. Suffice it to say that this matter falls within the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶11

Digitally signed by AARTI AARTI GAJANAN GAJANAN PALKAR PALKAR Date: 2025.10.04 16:34:20 +0530

¶12

Page 1 of 4 SEPTEMBER 30, 2025

¶13

Aarti Palkar

¶14

509.CARAP.407.2025.doc

¶15

It is apparent from the record that the arbitration agreement was invoked by Applicant on June 25, 2025, but there is no reply received from the Respondent.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the Respondent raises an objection stating that on the face of it, there is no dispute that is amenable to arbitration. He also points to Clause No.62 which provides for excusing performance under any circumstances outside the reasonable control of the party. This would squarely be a matter of fact and evidence which lies in the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶17

The scope of review under Section 11 is explicitly set out in Section 11(6A) of the Act. It is now trite law, with particular regard to the decisions of a seven-judge bench in the Interplay Judgement¹ followed by multiple others, including SBI General² and Patel³ that the Section 11 Court ought not to venture beyond examining the existence of a validly existing arbitration agreement that has been formally executed. Even questions of existential substance is a matter that falls squarely in the domain of the arbitral tribunal, in view of Section 16 of the Act.

¶18

1 In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreement under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899 – (2024) 6 SCC 1

¶19

2 SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krish Spinning – 2024 SCC OnLine 1974

¶20

3 Ajay Madhusudan Patel Vs. Jyotindra S. Patel – 2024 SCC OnLine, 2597

¶21

Page 2 of 4 SEPTEMBER 30, 2025

¶22

Aarti Palkar

¶23

509.CARAP.407.2025.doc

¶24

Being satisfied that an arbitration agreement is validly in existence, and that arbitration has been duly invoked, it is in the fitness of things to refer the disputes and differences between the parties in connection with the aforesaid Agreement to arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator.

¶25

In these circumstances, this Application is hereby finally disposedof , in terms of the following order:

¶26

A] Mr. Sachin Gite ([email protected]), a learned advocate of this Court is hereby appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of and in connection with the Agreement referred to above;

¶27

B] A copy of this Order will be communicated to the Learned Sole Arbitrator by the Advocates for the Applicant within a period of one week from the date of upload of this order. The Application shall provide the contact and communication particulars of the parties to the Arbitral Tribunal along with a copy of this Order;

¶28

C] The Learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to forward the statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act to the Advocates for the Applicant so as to enable them to file the same in the Registry of this Court. The Registry of this Court shall retain the said Statement on the file of this Application and a copy of the same shall be furnished by the Advocates for the Applicant to

¶29

Page 3 of 4 SEPTEMBER 30, 2025

¶30

Aarti Palkar

¶31

509.CARAP.407.2025.doc

¶32

the Advocates for the Respondent;

¶33

D] The parties shall appear before the Learned Sole Arbitrator on such date and at such place as indicated, to obtain appropriate directions with regard to conduct of the arbitration including fixing a schedule for pleadings, examination of witnesses, if any, schedule of hearings etc. At such meeting, the parties shall provide a valid and functional email address along with mobile and landline numbers of the respective Advocates of the parties to the Arbitral Tribunal. Communications to such email addresses shall constitute valid service of correspondence in connection with the arbitration;

¶34

E] All arbitral costs and fees of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be borne by the parties equally in the first instance, and shall be subject to any final Award that may be passed by the Tribunal in relation to costs.

¶35

Needless to say, nothing contained in this order is an expression of an opinion on merits of the matter or the relative strength of the parties. All issues on merits are expressly kept open to be agitated before the arbitral tribunal appointed hereby.

¶36

All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website.

¶37

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

¶38

Page 4 of 4 SEPTEMBER 30, 2025

¶39

Aarti Palkar

Arjuman Firoz Khan Sole Proprietor of Ms Autofill v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjuman Firoz Khan Sole Proprietor of Ms Autofill v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kalpesh J Palan vs Meena Alias Harsha a Joshi

Tata Capital Limited vs Biotor Industries Limited

M/s Jadhav vs Bholenath Developers Ltd.

Bhartiben Praful Chheda vs Everready Builders

Transasia Bio Medicals Ltd. vs Hindustan Wellness Private Limited

Ajay Gupta vs Devanshu Bansal