Dismissed

Kumari Lekshmi.T.S. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Kerala HC16 Dec 2011AR/39/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arbitrator in this arbitration petition between an LPG dealer and Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The court applied arbitral precedent and held that the respondent was correct in rejecting the petitioner's request, given the agreement required appointment of the Director or a designated officer. The court noted the respondent subsequently complied and closed the request without prejudice to arbitr

What did the court decide?

Arbitration request closed without prejudice to the rights of the parties in the arbitration proceedings.

Kumari Lekshmi.T.S. Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 AR.No. 39 of 2011() --------------------PETITIONER(s) : ------------------KUMARI LEKSHMI T.S., AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.N.S.SUBHASH, USRA 19, UDARASIROMONY ROAD, NEAR POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010. BY ADVS. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY

¶3

RESPONDENT(S) : ------------------INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (MARKETING), REGD.OFFICE, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI - 400 051. BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.NITHIN GEORGE SRI.P.GOPINATH

¶4

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

AR. NO. 39/2011

APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES :

¶9

ANNEX. A1 : COPY OF INDANE (LIQUIFIED PETROLEUM GAS) DISTRIBUTORSHIP (DOMESTIC & COMMERCIAL ) AGREEMENT DATED 19.04.1996 EXECUTED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT.

¶10

ANNEX. A2 : COPY OF ORDER NO.KESO/LPG/485 DATED 11.7.2008 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

¶11

ANNEX. A3 : COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 7.4.2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.C.NO.22607 OF 2008.

¶12

ANNEX. A4 : COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 9.6.2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A.NO.1159 OF 2009.

¶13

ANNEX. A5 : COPY OF LETTER NO. KESO:LPG:272(A)(8)/RTI/517 DATED 1.03.2010 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER'S HUSBAND, N.S. SUBHASH.

¶14

ANNEX. A6 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 3.3.2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A.NO.278 OF 2011.

¶15

ANNEX. A7 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.06.2011 SENT BYPETITIONER TO RESPONDENT.

¶16

ANNEX. A8 : COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD SIGNED BY RESPONDENT.

¶17

RESPONDENT(S) ANNEXURES : NIL

¶18

/ TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE

¶19

¶20

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶21

A.R. No.39 of 2011

¶22

Dated this the 16^th day of December, 2011

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The applicant is a dealer in petroleum products under the respondent. Certain disputes have arisen between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of distributorship given to the applicant as per Anneuxre-A1 agreement. As per the contract between the parties, the disputes have to be referred to arbitration. The applicant submitted an application before the respondent for reference of the disputes to arbitration by a retired High Court Judge as an arbitrator. Since the respondent did not comply with the request, they have filed this arbitration request.

¶25

A counter affidavit has been filed, wherein the respondent takes the stand that as per the arbitration clause, arbitration has to be before the Director (Marketing) or any officer of the 1^st respondent designated by him and as such the request for appointing an arbitrator other than the Director

¶26

A.R.No.39/11

¶27

¶28

(Marketing) is not in accordance with the arbitration clause and therefore, the respondent is not liable to comply with the request of the applicant. The applicant disputes the same. But, after hearing, I am satisfied that the stand of the respondent is correct, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS v. RAJA TRANSPORT PRIVATE LMITED [2009(8) SCC 520]. It is now submitted before me that subsequently, the respondent has appointed the arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration clause. This is not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant. Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the parties in the arbitration proceedings, this arbitration request is closed.

¶29

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶30

acd

¶31

A.R.No.39/11 3

¶32

A.R.No.39/11 4

Kumari Lekshmi.T.S. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Lekshmi.T.S. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

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

Regi Jose Vs Kuriakose Padavan

Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Vs B.Premkumar

Manager, H.L.P.S., Malesamangalam Vs State of Kerala and Others

M.P.Thankamma Vs the Registrar(General)

M/S.Wipro Ge Healthcare Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Commercial Tax Inspector

C.K.Abdul Khader Vs Intelligence Inspector