Disposed

V.K.Shaji v. Indian Oil Corporation

Kerala HC17 Jun 2011WP(C)/5920/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged forfeiture of security deposit and blacklisting regarding a transportation contract. Court held petitioner must pursue arbitration clause for deposit forfeiture but directed First Respondent to dispose of pending appeal on blacklisting within six weeks with hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the First Respondent to dispose of the pending appeal regarding blacklisting within six weeks after giving a hearing opportunity.

V.K.Shaji Vs Indian Oil Corporation — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 5920 of 2011(L) --------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-----------------------

¶8

V.K. SHAJI, VARAPUZHAKKARAN HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., KAMPANYPADY, ERNAKULAM-683 584.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN, SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN, SRI.M.V.JOSEPH (ALAPPUZHA).

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

--------------------------

¶12

1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN- 682 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER.

¶13

2. THE CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN- 682 036.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 5920 of 2011(L)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF TENDER VIDE NO.KL/OP/BULK POL/JT/07-10 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER VIDE NO.KESO/OP/51/IPNM/07-10/48 DATED 14/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE BANK GUARANTEE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 01/05/2007 BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.

¶23

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER AND ENDORSEMENT BY THE ASST. CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY ON 17/10/2008.

¶24

EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 17/11/2008 VIDE NO.KESO/OP/17 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P6: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 16/12/2008 ALONG WITH ADDL. SUBMISSION MADE ON 10/08/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P7: COPY OF THE WRITTEN CLAIM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 17/01/2011 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KESO/OP/17 DATED 31/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE TRANSPORT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION.

¶30

EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT CORPORATION DATED 21/10/2008.

¶31

EXT.R1(c): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/10/2008 ISSUED BY THE LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXT.R1(d): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/10/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT.

¶33

EXT.R1(e): COPY OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 20/10/2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶34

EXT.R1(f): COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 03/11/2008.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶39

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶40

W.P(C) No. 5920 of 2011

¶41

¶42

Dated this the 17^th day of June, 2011

¶43

J U D G M E N T

¶44

The grievance of the petitioner appears to be 'two-fold' in so far

¶45

as, the petitioner, who is stated as awarded a transportation contract,

¶46

being a the owner and driver of the vehicle bearing No.KL-01 E

¶47

3020, has been black-listed by the respondent Company, and the security deposit furnished has been forfeited, thus causing much loss and hardship to the petitioner. It is stated that, being aggrieved by Ext.P5 black listing, the petitioner has already approached the first respondent by filing Ext.P6 appeal, which is stated is pending.

¶48

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits with reference to Clause '4' under the Head 'E' dealing with the security deposit of Ext.P1 tender conditions, that there is no provision to have the security deposit forfeited, in absence of any loss/claim and/or damage arising out of the performance of the contract. The respondent contends that the petitioner has been black-listed pursuant

¶49

W.P.(C) No.5920 of 2011(L)

¶50

-:2:-

¶51

to the malpractice committed by the petitioner with reference to the 'locking system' and as such, the respondent is having every right to

¶52

have the security deposit forfeited for want of satisfactory performance.

¶53

The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent also submits that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by forfeiture of the security deposit, the agreement itself provides for invocation of the 'Arbitration Clause' and that it is not for this Court to pursue any such exercise, in view of the nature of the dispute involved.

¶54

After hearing the both sides, this Court finds that the petitioner, if at all aggrieved by forfeiture of the security deposit, has necessarily to pursue the remedy as provided under Clause 16 of Ext.R1(a), which is the relevant portion of the 'transportation agreement', providing such remedies. It is open for the petitioner to pursue the same in accordance with law. With regard to the challenge raised against 'black-listing' as per Ext.P5, there will be a direction to the first respondent to dispose of Ext.P6 appeal preferred against

¶55

W.P.(C) No.5920 of 2011(L)

¶56

-:3:-

¶57

Ext.P5, taking appropriate decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

¶58

within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶59

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶62

//TRUE COPY//

¶63

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶64

krj

V.K.Shaji v. Indian Oil Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K.Shaji v. Indian Oil Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Latha C.Pillai Vs District Collector

Visalan Pillai and Another Vs District Collector and Another

V.S.Deepthy Vs District Collector, Kollam & Others

Shamsheer Ahmad Vs Manoj

C.Mary Vs State of Kerala

Nabeesa P.A. Vs Muvalukad Grama Panhayath Rep. by Its