Two applications filed by a petition dealer against a fuel corporation seeking interim stays pending arbitration after dealership termination. The court appointed an arbitrator by consent of counsel and disposed of the applications.
Appointment of Mr. S. Senthil Kumaresan as Arbitrator; applications stood closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
A.Nos.3464 and 3465 of 2019
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA.J
A.No.3464 of 2019 is filed by the applicant seeking an order of interim stay of operation of the proceedings of the second respondent in termination order bearing Ref.No.SLM/DPR/RAJU dated 06.03.2019 so as to enable the applicant to continue to run the retail outlet under the name and style of M/s.Raju and Sons, pending disposal of Arbitration Proceedings.
2
However, a show cause notice dated 03.09.2018 was issued by the first respondent to the applicant calling for explanation as to why action need not be initiated against them for the irregularity. The applicant gave an explanation letter dated 21.09.2018 stating that he was busy with his marriage function and some errors had happened in the retail outlet due to improper maintenance of books of accounts by the new Manager. Not satisfied with the explanation of the applicant, the second respondent issued a notice dated 15.12.2018, for which, the applicant submitted a reply dated 22.12.2018.
3
counsel have agreed to appoint Mr.S.Senthil Kumaresan, as an Arbitrator.
4
and adjudicate the disputes inter se between the parties. The learned Arbitrator may, after issuing notice to the parties and upon hearing them, pass an award as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. The learned Arbitrator is at liberty to fix his remuneration and other incidental expenses. The proceedings may be conducted under the aegis of the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre and in accordance with the Madras High Court Arbitration Rules.
5
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
srn
A.Nos.3464 and 3465 of 2019
25.07.2019
M/s. Raju and Sons (PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA filing applicant)
CONTEX
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
