Disposed

M/S P.A.H.P. Petro Chems v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Dec 2022ARB/334/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Section 11 petition for appointment of an arbitrator and a connected Section 9 application. The court appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve a commercial dispute regarding dues between a petrol pump proprietor and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, subject to specific conditions regarding FDRs.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal as sole Arbitrator; disposal of connected Section 9 application with instructions on FDR release and revival.

M/S P.A.H.P. Petro Chems Vs Hindustan Petroleum… — Arbitration | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

-1-

¶2

ARB No. 334 of 2021 (O&M) FAO No. 852 of 2021 (O&M)

¶3

261 (2 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

ARB No. 334 of 2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.12.2022

¶5

M/s P.A.H.P. Petro Chems

¶6

-Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and another

¶9

-Respondents

¶10

FAO No. 852 of 2021 (O&M)

¶11

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

-Petitioner

Versus

Parveen Gupta

-Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

¶17

Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate, and Mr. Amandeep Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner (in ARB-334-2021) for the respondent (in FAO-852-2021).

¶18

Mr. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents (in ARB-334-2021) for the appellant (in FAO-852-2021).

¶19

¶20

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)

¶21

Vide this common order, ARB No.334 of 2021 and

¶22

FAO No.852 of 2021 are being disposed of. Facts are being

¶23

culled out from ARB No.334 of 2021.

¶24

JYOTI SHARMA 2022.12.20 17:19 I attest to the authenticity and accuracy of this order/judgment

¶25

-2-

¶26

ARB No. 334 of 2021 (O&M) FAO No. 852 of 2021 (O&M)

¶27

The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an independent arbitrator in order to adjudicate the dispute between the parties arising out of dealership agreement dated 01.07.2015.

¶28

The petitioner is a proprietor of M/s PAHP Petro Chems and is running a petrol pump and is also engaged in supply and retail of petroleum products of the respondent. The petitioner has raised its claim of investment of Rs.42,67,177.20 as on 28.02.2021 along with interest amounting to Rs.11,37,484/- i.e. total amount of Rs.54,04,661.20. E-mail dated 03.03.2021 was issued to this effect. The petitioner made a debit entry to the tune of Rs.7,79,792/- in the account of the respondent- Corporation.

¶29

Admittedly, there is a dispute between the parties qua

¶30

the aforesaid amount in view of exchange of e-mail from both sides.

¶31

The petitioner further alleged that the respondentCorporation was not agreeing to the stand of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was not left with any option but to stop the payment of the petroleum products as due towards him in order to force the respondent to adjudicate upon the lawful dues of the petitioner. The total due amount as raised by the

¶32

JYOTI SHARMA 2022.12.20 17:19 I attest to the authenticity and accuracy of this order/judgment

¶33

ARB No. 334 of 2021 (O&M) FAO No. 852 of 2021 (O&M)

¶34

-3-

¶35

respondent- Corporation due towards sale of petroleum product is Rs.93,77,156/- as on 01.05.2021.

¶36

Evidently, the petitioner has also preferred an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The application was allowed till disposal of application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act pending in the High Court, subject to the condition that in case the petitioner within a period of one month from 11.08.2021 places on record bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.1 crore or in alternative places on record FDR in a sum of Rs.1 crore with undertaking from issuing Bank, then the respondent shall resume the supply of the petroleum products to the retail outlet in question in terms of Memorandum of Agreement dated 01.07.2015.

¶37

Admittedly, the supply is still continuing and the petitioner has also executed a FDR in a sum of Rs.1 crore having Account No.077810PU00001375 dated 13.08.2021 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Plot No.4 Sector 10 Dwarka, New Delhi.

¶38

FAO No.852 of 2021 is pending arising out of proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶39

During the course of arguments, it could not be

¶40

JYOTI SHARMA 2022.12.20 17:19 I attest to the authenticity and accuracy of this order/judgment

¶41

ARB No. 334 of 2021 (O&M) FAO No. 852 of 2021 (O&M)

¶42

-4-

¶43

disputed between the parties that the dispute as regards Rs.54,04,661.20/- is arbitral in nature. The amount of Rs.7,79,792/- shall also be taken care of by the Arbitrator on the basis of material to be produced by the parties.

¶44

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the amount under FDRs be released in favour of the respondents so as to put the amount under circulation and the respondents shall be bound to re-execute/revive the FDR for the awarded amount along with interest without waiting for the outcome of any objection or appeal therefrom.

¶45

In view of consensus arrived at between the parties, the aforesaid petitions are disposed of. I deem it appropriate to appoint Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal, Additional Director Prosecution and Legal Remembrance HSVP #519, 1st Floor, MDC Sector-6, Panchkula, 9888492885 as the sole Arbitrator, to resolve the dispute/difference between the parties. The appointment of the Arbitrator shall be subject to the declaration to be made by him as required under Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in respect of his independence and impartiality to settle the dispute between the parties.

¶46

The Arbitrator would complete the proceedings within the specified time in terms of Section 29-A of the said Act. The Arbitrator shall be paid fee in accordance with the IVth Schedule

¶47

JYOTI SHARMA 2022.12.20 17:19 I attest to the authenticity and accuracy of this order/judgment

¶48

-5-

¶49

ARB No. 334 of 2021 (O&M) FAO No. 852 of 2021 (O&M)

¶50

of the Act as amended from time to time. The fee shall be borne

¶51

by the petitioner and respondent(s) in equal proportion.

¶52

The venue will be as per the convenience of the

¶53

Arbitrator.

¶54

A copy of this order be dispatched to the Arbitrator at the following address:-

¶55

Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal, Additional Director Prosecution and Legal Remembrance HSVP

¶56

#519, 1st Floor, MDC Sector-6, Panchkula 9888492885

¶57

FAO is also disposed of.

¶58

Since the amount of Rs.93,77,156/- is the payment of

¶59

petroleum products supplied to the petitioner on credit basis, therefore, the award if any passed by the Arbitrator would be set off against the aforesaid amount and rest of the amount shall be paid to the respondents along with interest.

¶60

The amount lying under FDR be released to the respondents, subject to an undertaking that in the event of passing of award, if any, by the Arbitrator in favour of the petitioner, FDR would be revived or re-constituted in the same manner within a period of one month from the date of passing of the award, without waiting for outcome of any objection or appeal thereunder.

¶61

JYOTI SHARMA 2022.12.20 17:19 I attest to the authenticity and accuracy of this order/judgment

¶62

-6-

¶63

ARB No. 334 of 2021 (O&M) FAO No. 852 of 2021 (O&M)

¶64

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of

¶65

connected case.

¶66

16.12.2022 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH) Jyoti Sharma JUDGE

¶67

1.Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No 2.Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶68

JYOTI SHARMA 2022.12.20 17:19 I attest to the authenticity and accuracy of this order/judgment

M/S P.A.H.P. Petro Chems v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S P.A.H.P. Petro Chems v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kaushik Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan and Ors.

Jitender Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Babita Rani Vs M/S Genesis Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

Simrat Kaur and Anr. Vs M/S Mani Restaurants LLP

Rahul Gupta and Anr. Vs Advance India Projects Limited

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others