Shri Sadashiv Narayanrao ... vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd
2013 Latest Caselaw 332 Bom

    jsn                                          1                           ARA No.17_2012


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                        
                       ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.17 OF 2012




                                                                
    Shri Sadashiv Narayanrao Jambhale                    ...            Appellant
                 Vs.
    Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.                          ...            Respondent




                                                               
    A.V. Anturkar, Adv. a/w. Amol Gatne, Adv. i/b. S.B. Deshmukh, Adv. 
    for the Appellant.
    Chirag Modi, Adv. i/b. DSK Legal for the Respondent.




                                                    
                                        CORAM :   MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 11th October, 2013

DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 12th December, 2013

J U D G M E N T

1. The Appellant was appointed distributor of Indane Gas

under an agreement dated 29th February, 2001 admittedly executed

between the parties. The parties were bound by its terms and conditions. The Appellant is stated to have breached certain

conditions. He was stated to have carried out certain acts and omissions which tantamounts to misconduct. Certain complaints were filed before the Respondent. The Appellant was suspended and thereafter his distributorship agreement was terminated on 26 th

November, 2008. The termination was disputed by the Appellant. The Appellant challenged the termination and claimed compensation and damages for loss of business and reputation with interest. Since the agreement dated 29th February, 2001 has an arbitration clause the Appellant lodged the claim in arbitration. The arbitrator has rejected his claim against termination as also for compensation. He

jsn 2 ARA No.17_2012

has held that distributorship agreement is rightly terminated and that he was not entitled to any compensation.

2. The Appellant challenged the award U/s.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) in the above Misc.

Civil Application No.53 of 2011 before the Principal District Judge, Kolhapur. His appeal / application has been dismissed. He has

appealed therefrom U/s.37 of the Act.

3. What the arbitrator has seen and what must be seen by this Court is whether a case is made out against the Appellant to allow the

Respondent to terminate his dealership agreement. It must be remembered that the Appellant was the claimant. He has claimed

that there was no gross act or omission which would merit termination. It is for him to prove that. It is further claimed on his

behalf that he cannot prove a negative and hence the Respondent in the arbitration must show acts or omissions of the Appellant as distributor of Indane Gas. Be that as it may, the Respondent has in

fact shown certain acts and omissions. The Respondent has also

shown the arbitrator the steps taken by the Respondent upon the complaints received by it under letters of various persons including

Senior Govt. Officers such as the Addl. Collector, Kolhapur, Sarpanch, the Panchayat, the Superintendent of Police, Budhargad Police Station in addition to other numerous letters and complaints of the customers which came to be made that there was no system of refill booking,

diversion of domestic cylinders for non domestic use, overcharging on refills, not giving rebates on non home delivery, non delivery of cylinders, over charging while releasing new connection, not giving proper official documents i.e. subscription voucher (SV) etc. People resorted to agitation including road blocking and calling of bandh.

4. More than hundred complaints were received. A meeting

jsn 3 ARA No.17_2012

was arranged by the Sarpanch in which the Tahasildar, District Supply Officer also remained present and received a number of complaints,

newspapers carried out several articles in respect of the Bandh which was declared. The Senior Inspector of Police registered two FIRs

starting the criminal machinery. An explanation was sought by the Respondent from the Appellant. The Appellant denied the contentions

by letter dated 7th November, 2008. The Appellant did not offer explanation or justification. Consequently the distributorship agreement was terminated.

5. The Appellant contends that no sufficient opportunity has given for explanation. It may be mentioned that hearing upon a show

cause notice has been held to be sufficient upon a reply of the noticee (see Sopan Maruti Thopte Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation, AIR

1996 Bom 304). When a show cause notice was issued and reply is sought the party is put to notice and is free to explain, justify or merely deny any of the contentions. If the party only denies the

allegations, when he would have produced positive evidence to

substantiate his denials. It would only be seen that the opportunity was not claimed though given and hence the noticee has nothing

more to state.

6. It may also be mentioned that upon a case of a particular complaint the allegations would require to be proved by the complainant. However the expanse of the case under which hundreds

of complaints are received leads one to conclude that each of them cannot be false and in arbitration proceedings the Arbitrator is free to follow his own procedure without any recourse to CPC or Indian Evidence Act. In this case the receipt of numerous complaints was accompanied by the declaration of bandh, articles in newspapers as also criminal complaints which would be separately prosecuted. The

jsn 4 ARA No.17_2012

arbitrator has rightly rubbished the claim of the Appellant that all these were politically motivated. He has considered sufficient

opportunity of hearing being given which stands to reason.

7. The complaints about the acts of omissions of the

Appellant would lend themselves to be proved only by the Appellant. It would be interesting to consider several types of complaints.

a) One of the complaints was that there was no system of refill booking prepared by the Appellant as required. It would be for the Appellant to show the system of refill booking that he had

prepared if it was prepared. Such evidence is only in the

domain of the Appellant and in fact U/s.106 of the Indian Evidence Act also the Appellant who claimed that the

termination was invalid was enjoined to show that there was system of refill booking which he scrupulously prepared.

b) Similar is the complaint that cash memos for new connection were not prepared. If the complaints are erroneous, false or

motivated it is for the Appellant to show his documentary evidence kept in the normal course of the business evidencing

cash memos prepared from time to time. That is not done.

c) Another complaint was that adhesive stamp amounts collected from customers were not affixed. Here again record could have

been produced by the Appellant himself to show the adhesive stamps affixed as required in law.

d) There is similar complaint that 1160 dead cards were activated by the appellant. This would be a criminal offence. It would tantamount to forgery and fabrication of documents. It is for the Appellant to show that the cards which were prepared by

jsn 5 ARA No.17_2012

producing them since they would be only in his custody.

e) Even the complaint relating to forgery could have been largely

countered by showing the account kept in the normal course of his business (if at all they were so kept) showing no forgery.

f) Similarly complaints that SV papers were not issued can be simplicitor falsified by production of SV papers. None of which

is produced.

8. Upon an analysis of the complaints relating to the various

aspects stated above it may be stated that even if some of the

complaints were motivated and could not be disproved by the Appellant who was himself the claimant, several others could have

disputed by him by production of the evidence in his charge and control. This he failed to do in reply to the Respondent's notice as also in the arbitration.

9. The award shows inter-alia the consideration of such pleadings and evidence. The learned arbitrator recorded evidence

that was led before him. He has appreciated that evidence in the light of the claimant's admissions. This shows that enquiry officers came to

visit him at his office. The claimant offered his explanation. He replied by his letter dated 2nd October, 2008 in reply to the Respondent's letter dated 3rd September, 2008 specifying 107 complaints made against him. The arbitrator has rightly considered

that opportunity was sufficiently given. Hence the explanation, if any, would show his defence to the disputed termination.

10. In fact the claimant admitted that 50% of the complaints were of his customers during his cross examination. He could not give any response or justification in respect of those complaints.

11. The complaints made by various authorities including the

jsn 6 ARA No.17_2012

Respondent have been produced before the arbitrator and have been shown to this Court also. It is futile for the claimant to only contend

that he was not heard when he has nothing further to state. Even before the arbitrator nothing whatsoever is stated or produced

showing his acts as per the agreement.

12. In an arbitration proceeding the lack of such evidence

coupled with the case of the Respondent of such complaints would seal the claimant's fate. The lack of documentary evidence as also the admissions of the enquiry and the complaints of 50% of persons who

are his customers would make the case so gross as not deserving any interference with the termination. The learned arbitrator has correctly

held that the dealership agreement is determinable by the Respondents and thus specific performance cannot be granted as

claimed by the Appellant.

13. Further the Appellant made a tall claim of monetary loss incurred by him for loss of business and reputation of a total of

Rs.2.26 Crores without any documentary proof. He claimed losses

upon cheques of Rs.5.75 but did not show any cheque. He also made a claim of Rs.4.2 lacs on account of transportation which is held not

maintainable. The learned Arbitrator has called the bluff of the claimant for the gross amount of claim made for monetary losses and loss of business upon seeing his income tax returns showing only income of Rs.5.03 lacs. Consequently he has rightly rejected the

entire claim. Indeed it is seen to be false and frivolous.

14. The learned Principal District Judge, Kolhapur in the impugned judgment has considered each of the aforesaid claims of the applicant with regard to the negative burden of proof, the aspect of natural justice and the proof of falsity of the complaints on merits. He has rightly considered that the arbitrator has given a fair opportunity

jsn 7 ARA No.17_2012

to the parties for leading evidence which the Appellant / Claimant has availed of and led. He has also considered the paramount importance

of the agitation, road blocking and the declaration of Bandh which are out of the ordinary acts which would require immediate steps to be

taken and which cannot be done in a normal case where the business affairs of the claimant would be clear and proper. He has, therefore,

rightly considered that the award is not against public policy and not against any provision of law. The aspect of negative burden made out by the complainant himself who made claim and had to positively

prove his business affairs has also been considered. Nothing further need be done on merits. The termination is, therefore, seen to be

validly made. In fact it was most opportune and the Respondent would have failed in its duty as a public corporation if it had allowed

the acts and omissions of the Appellant to continue.

15. It may be stated that the Respondent was, under the agreement with the Appellant not even bound to give reasons for the

termination that it has given. The Respondent has set out a list of

complaints received, agitations of the public, and enquiries by public officer which it was not even enjoined to do. Common law relating to

contracts allows termination of such contracts even without notice. This would allow one party to terminate the contract as stated in the agreement between the parties without the other party having done anything wrong. The Law of Contract by Cheshire, Fifoot and

Furmston's, Twelfth edition at page 551 sets out the termination without cause as one of the contractual provisions of termination thus :

It is not unusual for contracts to contain provisions entitling one party to terminate without the other party having done anything wrong. At first sight this seems

jsn 8 ARA No.17_2012

strange, but there are many situations where it makes excellent sense.

....

Contracts often contain provisions permitting cancellation

without charge where the contract is wholly executory. Even where work has been done, it is not unusual to find provisions for cancellation in return for payment of compensation. The most common examples are in the field

of government contract, where the need to be able to cancel weapon projects, or motorway schemes makes such provisions easily understandable.

The most obvious example, however, is in long-term

contracts of indefinite duration, such as contracts of employment. Here it is common to make express provision

for termination by notice and usually easy to infer that the contract is terminable by notice, even in the absence of express provision.

16. In the case of Staffordshire Area Health Authority v.

South Staffordshire Waterworks Co., The All England Law Reports, 1978 (3) relating to termination of contract the contract was

determinable by a reasonable notice. The water company was to supply water at a specified rate to a hospital. The contract was to

continue "at all times hereafter" Inflation increased the normal water charges twentyfold since the contract was made. It was to be seen whether the water company could terminate the contract by reasonable notice. It was held Per Lord Denning MR that only because

of a fall in the value of money circumstances arose which were not foreseen by the parties and the parties were no longer bound by the contract which could be terminated on reasonable notice even without the fault of the other party.

It was held Per Goff and Cumming-Bruce LJJ at Pg.769 that the higher rates of water showed that water company could not afford

jsn 9 ARA No.17_2012

to supply water to the hospital on the terms fixed once and for all and since there was no provision in the contract for variation of the charge

of water and the increase of the water charges would have resulted in repeated arbitrations, Court would infer a power to terminate the

agreement on reasonable notice despite the contract being "at all times hereafter". It was seen that the water company has given

reasonable notice of termination for terminating the agreement even though the hospital was not at fault. It may, therefore, be seen that the contract such as one for distributorship of gas which is for an

indeterminate period, both parties would reasonably be entitled to terminate the contract by giving reasonable notice to the other party.

Hence even without the various complaints and agitations, upon seeing that various statutory and contractual requirements were not

maintained by the Appellant / Claimant the Respondent could have even otherwise terminated his contract.

17. In the case of Food Corporation of India & Ors. Vs.

Jagannath Dutta & Ors., 1993 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 635,

the agreement between the parties specifically provided in Section 37 that it can be terminated without assigning any reason by giving two

months notice in writing. Notice of termination was given which came to be quashed by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that quashing was improper.

18. The contract between the parties, under which arbitration

was sought, allows termination with as well as without cause in clauses 27 & 28 thereof. It is contended on behalf of the Appellant that termination without cause should have been non-stigmatic. That cannot take out of the purview the termination sought for such gross cause.

19. It is also contended that whereas no inquiry was earlier

jsn 10 ARA No.17_2012

held, with a separate right to cross examine, it is conceded that the arbitrator himself conducted such inquiry but it is argued that such

process could not have been undertaken by the Arbitrator. This argument may have been plausible; but for the fact that the Appellant

himself resorted to arbitration and hence called up the Arbitrator to enter upon such inquiry.

20. Even the contention that unproved papers of the Respondent were alone considered by the Arbitrator is no good in view of the total lack of any evidence which was material, relevant

and required but not led by the Appellant himself.

21. The parties must, therefore, be left to their volition to

terminate the contract just as they would contract upon their own volition. They must be held entitled to terminate the contract also by

a reasonable notice. Hence even otherwise the case of the Respondent that the contract cannot be terminated and the termination was bad would imply that he wanted the contract to

continue ad infinitum and an order in that behalf would be in the

nature of mandatory relief and the grant of specific performance of that contract which could not have been done. However in this case

even on merits the learned Arbitrator and the learned Principal District Judge have seen the lack of bonafides of the case of the claimant to continue as the contractual party and the reasonable case of the Respondent to have terminated the contract.

22. In the Judgment in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Amritsar Gas Service & Ors., (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 533, it is held that the distributorship agreement for sale of gas is the one for rendering personal services. Such agreement is revocable in terms of the agreement. Hence the relief granting restoration of distributorship was an error in law. This judgment has

jsn 11 ARA No.17_2012

been rightly considered in the award itself.

23. It is seen that the award does not suffer from the vice of

being against public policy or any of the statutory provisions of any law nor it is against justice of morality or illegal. It certainly does not

shock the conscience of the Court. In fact the Court's conscience would be shocked if a licencee, such as the Appellant herein against

whom so many complaints were filed, was allowed to continue as licencee undeterred by the complaints. If in the light of the circumstances shown by the Respondent against the claim the learned

arbitrator had upheld the agreement allowing it to continue and had set aside the termination lawfully, justifiably and even morally made

in the interest of a public and upon the complaints of various illegalities committed by the claimant, the parameters laid down in

the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 705, would have compelled this Court to set aside such award. The impugned award and the

impugned order do not fall foul of the parameters in the case of

ONGC (Supra).

24. Hence the impugned order of the learned Principal District

Judge, Kolhapur dated 9th February, 2012 is confirmed. Consequently the arbitration award dated 3rd January, 2011 is also confirmed.

( ROSHAN DALVI, J. )