Prasad Gas Agency vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd
2014 Latest Caselaw 28 Bom

    Kvm
                                             1/15
                                                                                        ARBP1335.13



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                    
                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                    ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1335 OF 2013




                                                            
    1. M/s.Prasad Gas Agency                        )
    Propritor Purushottam Fulaji Thakur             )
    Malegaon Road, Manmad                           )




                                                           
    Also at Ganesh Colony Satana Road,              )
    NAV Vasahat, Soyegaon,                          )
    Tah.Malegaon, Dist. Nashik                      )    ..... Petitioner
                                                         (Orig.Claimant before




                                               
                                                         Arbitral Tribunal)
                             VERSUS
                                
    1. Bharat Petrolium Corporation Limited)
    having it's Registered office at       )
                               
    Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road,)
    Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001,        )
    represented Through it's Territorial   )
    manager (LPG), LPG Refilling Plant,    )
    MIDC Area, Malegaon, The.Sinnar,       )
            


    Dist. Nasik                            )             ..... Respondent
         



                                                         (Org.Respondent)

    Mr.Mohit Bhansali for the Petitioners.
    Mr.S.R.Page for the Respondents.





                                     CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.
                                     RESERVED ON : NOVEMBER 15, 2014
                                     PRONOUNCED ON : DECEMBER 1, 2014





    JUDGMENT

By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has impugned the award dated 7 th September, 2012 passed by the learned arbitrator thereby rejecting the claims made by the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :-

Kvm

ARBP1335.13

2. On or about 7th October, 1986 the respondent entered into an agreement with

the petitioner for distributorship of sale of the Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) known as Bharat Gas in cylinders only to household and commercial consumers in

the area of Manmad Municipal Limits on the terms and conditions setout in the said agreement dated 7th October, 1986. Clause 28 of the said agreement provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the said agreement, the

respondent herein shall also be at liberty at its entire discretion to terminate the said agreement forthwith upon or at any time after the happening of any of the

events mentioned therein. The right of the respondent to terminate the said agreement under clause 28 is without prejudice to and without affecting any of its

other rights and remedies against the distributors.

3. Under clause 29 of the said agreement it is provided that the corporation or the distributor shall be entitled to terminate the said agreement on giving 30 days notice to the other party without assigning any reasons for such termination.

Clause 29 of the said agreement is extracted as under :-

29 Without prejudice to the foregoing provision or any thing to the contrary herein contained, either of the parties hereto, namely, the Corporation or the Distributor, shall be

entitled terminate this Agreement on giving thirty days notice to the other party without assigning any reason for such termination.

4. Clause 32A of the said agreement provided that upon termination of the said

agreement, the distributor shall be liable to immediately handover, return and redeliver to the corporation or any person nominated by the corporation the entire stock of LPG filled/empty cylinders/equipments that may have been made available or entrusted or hired to the distributor by the corporation during the currency of the said agreement.

Kvm

ARBP1335.13

5. Clause 37 of the said agreement provided that the said agreement had been

made in all respects in the local jurisdiction of Bombay and the payments thereunder shall be given and made in Bombay unless otherwise directed by the

corporation. The courts in the City of Bombay alone shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any claim or dispute arising under that agreement. Clause 38 provides for an arbitration

agreement.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that since 1986 till 2008 the said distributorship granted to the petitioner was sailing smoothly. It is the case of the

respondent that various complaints were received against the petitioner by the respondent from various consumers. The respondent found that the petitioner was

growing more than sales area growth and the supplies were made to the petitioner as per their requirement.

7. On 29th June, 2009 the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent alleging

that due to an excess harassment by the respondent, the petitioner was required to take the decision. The petitioner made various allegations in the said letter and

requested the respondent to take cognizance on the allegations made therein and of a resignation of protest and to consider the same properly. By a letter dated 9 th July 2009 to the respondent the petitioner recorded that the discussion had taken place in the office of the Territory Manager of the respondent on 4 th July 2009 on various

points contained in the letter dated 29 th June 2009 and it was agreed that both parties would render co-operation to each other and therefore the petitioner withdrew the letter dated 29th June 2009.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that on 12 th August, 2009, a mob of consumers

Kvm

ARBP1335.13

caused an attack on the showroom of the petitioner and caused damage to the

rickshaw of the petitioner. The said mob also assaulted the son of the proprietor of the petitioner and their employees and the property. It is stated in the letter that in

order to see that there should not be danger to the life of the only son of the distributor and the employees and to see that there was no loss to the property caused in future, it required for him to take decision of resignation. The petitioner

requested the respondent to consider the same sympathetically and to render co- operation to continue their agency respectfully.

9. The petitioner by their letter dated 13th August, 2009 to the respondent stated

that on 12th August 2009 an incident had taken place and as the health of the distributor was not good, he had sent his son with a letter of resignation and

godown keys, however the same was not accepted by the Territory Manager. It is alleged that on account of the said incident, even the employees were also afraid and were not ready to come on duty. The petitioner accordingly requested the

respondent to sanction his resignation immediately. It is the case of the respondent

that the petitioner abruptly stopped the operation of distributorship w.e.f. 13 th August 2009.

10. The respondent deputed the sales officer Nashik to visit to Malegaon on 14 th August 2009 to assess the situation and convince and resolve the issue if any. The petitioner was however adamant not to withdraw his resignation even after

repeated counselling by the sales officer in the presence of the fellow distributor Mr.Ashok Bairaji of M/s. Deepak Gas Agency, Malegaon. The Territory Manager also spoke to the proprietor of the petitioner over phone and requested him to continue the distributorship operation but all in vein. It is the case of the respondent that since the petitioner abruptly closed the operation of distributorship

Kvm

ARBP1335.13

w.e.f. 13th August, 2009, the respondent vide their letter dated 19 th August 2009

informed the petitioner that due to the closer of the operation of the distributorship abruptly by the petitioner since 13th August 2009 and even godown of the petitioner

was found closed as reported by the transporters without any prior notice, it was causing inconvenience to the consumers and that the same was in violation of distributorship agreement. The respondent informed the petitioner that while their

resignation was been processed, petitioner was advised to submit 30 days prior notice and to run the distributorship till the alternative arrangement was made to

avoid the inconvenience to the consumers.

11.

The petitioner by their letter dated 26th August, 2009 contended that they had already submitted their resignation well in advance i.e. on 26th June 2009 (instead

of typing 29th June 2009) and refused to submit 30 days notice as per clause 29. It is the case of the respondent that the Territory Manager Nashik of the respondent vide his note dated 20th August, 2009 to the Executive Director, LPG processed the

resignation submitted by the petitioner and sought approval to accept the

resignation of the petitioner. As per the policy of the respondent, the respondent considered the request of the petitioner and accepted their resignation on 9 th

September, 2009 and rescinded the distributorship agreement and the said agreement accordingly stood terminated w.e.f. 9th September 2009.

12. On 7th September, 2009 the petitioner addressed letter to the respondent. The

petitioner alleged that there was no improvement in the supply of cylinders and as a result thereof the petitioner was required to face the displeasure and dissatisfaction from the consumers. It is the case of the respondent that the said letter dated 7th September 2009 was received by the respondent on 10th September 2009 i.e. after acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner by the respondent on

Kvm

ARBP1335.13

9th September 2009.

13. It is case of the respondent that pursuant to the termination of the

distributorship agreement, inventory and stocks etc. of the distributorship was taken over on 14th September 2009. The said inventory note had been also countersigned by the proprietor of the petitioner. The respondent also released the

credit amount of Rs.4,43,429/- in favour of the petitioner.

14. The petitioner thereafter addressed a letter to the respondent on 24 th September, 2009 stating that the petitioner had tendered resignation of the

distributorship by letter dated 13th August 2009 which had been accepted by the respondent as per the directions of the Territory Manager, Sinnar, Nashik of the

respondent. The petitioner had handed over all the record and the property of the respondent on 14th September, 2009. It was however alleged that due to some untoward incident, the proprietor was under a depression that he had to arrive at

such a fateful decision and was compelled to resign. It is stated that the petitioner

did not have means of livelihood and requested the respondent to reconsider the situation and that the petitioner was willing to withdraw his resignation.

15. The petitioner thereafter issued a legal notice through their advocate to the respondent alleged that the proprietor of the petitioner was mentally disturbed and in that condition he had sent resignation letter alongwith reasons to the respondent

without prejudice to his legal rights. However after his mental condition was settled, he had immediately sent a letter of withdrawal of resignation and requested to continue his distributorship. The petitioner requested the respondent to reconsider the situation and to continue the distributorship. The petitioner contended that if the distributorship is not continued within 15 days, the petitioner

Kvm

ARBP1335.13

would invoke its rights under clause 38 of the distributorship agreement.

16. The respondent thereafter appointed the learned arbitrator under clause 38 of

the distributorship agreement. The petitioner filed statement of claim before the learned arbitrator. In the said statement of claim it was alleged by the petitioner that in view of the incident having taken place and there being no remedial

measures taken by the respondent, the blood-pressure of the proprietor of the petitioner increased and he was admitted in the hospital. The respondent was

allegedly harassing the petitioner on telephone and was demanding immediate resignation. It was alleged that the petitioner was mentally disturbed and in that

condition his resignation letter was forcefully taken by the respondent. No sooner his mental condition settled, he withdrew his resignation. In the said statement of

claim the petitioner applied for a declaration that the distributorship agreement dated 7th October 1986 was existing and the resignation obtained by the respondent by using force, creating compelling circumstances was null and void and sought a

direction for regular supply of gas cylinders to the petitioner. The respondent filed

written statement before the learned arbitrator opposing the said claim on various grounds including the ground that there was no arbitrable dispute between the

parties. The learned arbitrator framed 9 issues.

17. Before the learned arbitrator the petitioner examined the proprietor of the petitioner and also filed affidavits of 10 witnesses. Out of the 10 witnesses the

proprietor of the petitioner and Mr.Gurdeep Singh Kant and Mr.Raj Kamal S.Pande who were present were cross examined by the respondent. The respondent examined Mr.P.K.Saxena, the then Territory Manager and Mr.Tushar Jagtap, the concern sales officer who filed their affidavits in lieu of examination in chief and were cross examined by the petitioner. By an award dated 7 th September 2012 the

Kvm

ARBP1335.13

learned arbitrator upheld the termination of the dealership vide letter dated 9 th

September 2009 and refused to grant reliefs to the petitioner. The petitioner was not entitled for restoration of dealership and was also not entitled to any

damages/compensation as the agreement was rescinded by the petitioner by way of resignation vide letter dated 13th August 2009 and the same was accepted by the respondent. The said award has been impugned by the petitioner in this petition.

18. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was no

termination of the contract by the petitioner under clause 29 of the distributorship agreement. It is submitted that even if the letter dated 13 th August, 2009 is

considered as letter of resignation, the respondent forced and compelled the petitioner to address such a letter. In view of the assault and attack by the mob

prior to the petitioner addressing such letter, the said letter could not have been considered as a resignation letter. When the petitioner applied for withdrawal of such letter, the respondent ought to have permitted him to withdraw such letter and

ought to have restored the distributorship to the petitioner.

19. It is submitted that in any event under clause 29 of the agreement, both the

parties were entitled to terminate the agreement provided 30 days' notice was issued by the parties to exercise the right to terminate the agreement under the said clause. It is submitted that admittedly, the petitioner had not given 30 days' notice for termination of contract. Even the respondent did not give 30 days'

notice for termination of agreement which was mandatory under clause 29 of the distributorship agreement.

20. It is submitted that the respondent has accepted the resignation letter purported to have been issued by the petitioner on 26 th June 2009 when no such

Kvm

ARBP1335.13

letter was addressed by the petitioner at all. The petitioner had addressed the letter

on 29th June 2009, there was thus no acceptance of the purported letter of resignation. It is submitted that the learned arbitrator had not considered this

crucial aspect in the impugned award.

21. Mr.Page, learned counsel for the respondent invited my attention to

various letters addressed by the petitioner referred to aforesaid and submits that the petitioner had not alleged any duress or coercion against the respondent in

any of the correspondence and the said allegation made is an after thought. It is submitted that though the respondent had requested the petitioner not to insist

upon accepting the resignation, the petitioner abruptly stopped distributing supply of LPG cylinders which caused tremendous hardship to the consumers.

22. The respondent had requested the petitioner to continue the supply of the cylinders to the consumers of the petitioner till alternate arrangement was made by

the respondent and to issue 30 days' notice, instead of continuing the supply

of cylinders to the consumers and giving 30 days' notice, the petitioner contended that it had already tendered resignation and there was no question of

issuing 30 days' notice. It is submitted that thus the respondent was in these circumstances compelled to accept resignation and to make an alternate arrangement for supply of LPG cylinders to the consumers of the petitioner.

23. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that it is not pleaded by the petitioner at any point of time before the learned arbitrator that the petitioner had not tendered a resignation at all. The learned counsel invited my attention to the note dated 14th September 2009 which was prepared at the time of taking inventory and possession of various articles were handed over by the

Kvm

ARBP1335.13

petitioner to the respondent after resignation of the petitioner. The petitioner had

counter- signed the said note and confirmed the fact of delivery of those items. The respondent had released a sum of Rs.4,43,429/- to the petitioner which was

the credit balance liable to be returned to the petitioner.

24. Learned counsel invited my attention to various parts of the oral evidence

led by both the parties in support of the submission that the petitioner had not alleged any duress or coercion and did not prove the allegation made regarding

tender of resignation letter. It is submitted that since the petitioner had abruptly stopped supply of gas cylinders, M/s. Deepak Gas Agency supplied the gas to the

consumers of the petitioner with effect from 14 th August 2009. These facts are proved in the cross- examination of the witness examined by the respondent.

25. Learned counsel for the respondent then submits that the petitioner has not challenged the termination of the contract but has only applied for a declaration

that the resignation obtained by the respondent by using force and creating

compelling circumstances was null and void. The petitioner did not pray for damages/compensation. The contract entered into between the parties permitted

both the parties to terminate the contract. In this case, the petitioner has tendered a resignation which was accepted by the respondent. In support of this submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Amritsar Gas Services and Ors., reported in

(1991) 1 SCC 533 and in particular paragraphs 12 & 14 of the said judgment which read thus :-

"12. The arbitrator recorded finding on issue No. 1 that termination of distributorship by the appellant-Corporation was not validly made under Clause 27. Thereafter, he proceeded to record the finding on issue No. 2 relating to grant of relief and held that the plaintiff-respondent

Kvm

ARBP1335.13

No.1 was entitled to compensation flowing from the breach of contract till the breach was remedied by restoration of distributorship.

Restoration of distributorship was granted in view of the peculiar facts of the case on the basis of which it was treated to be an exceptional case

for the reasons given. The reasons given state that the Distributorship Agreement was for an indefinite period till terminated in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was entitled to continuance of the distributorship till it was

terminated in accordance with the agreed terms. The award further says as under:

"This award will, however, not fetter the right of the defendant Corporation to terminate the distributorship of the plaintiff in

accordance with the terms of the agreement dated April 1, 1976, if and when an occasion arises."

This finding read along with the reasons given in the award clearly accepts that the distributorship could be terminated in accordance with

the terms of the Agreement dated 1.4.1976, which contains the aforesaid Clauses 27 and 28. Having said so in the award itself, it is obvious that the arbitrator held the distributorship to be revocable in accordance with Clauses 27 and 28 of the Agreement. It is in this sense that the award describes the Distributorship Agreement as one for an indefinite

period, that is, till terminated in accordance with Clauses 27 and 28.

The finding in the award being that the Distributorship Agreement was revocable and the same being admittedly for rendering personal service, the relevant provisions of the Specific Relief Act were automatically attracted. Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act

specifies the contracts which cannot be specifically enforced, one of which is 'a contract which is in its nature determinate'. In the present case, it is not necessary to refer to the other clauses of Sub-section (1) of Section 14, which also may be attracted in the present case since Clause

(c) clearly applies on the finding read with the reasons given in the

award itself that the contract by its nature is determinable. This being so granting the relief of restoration of the distributorship even on the finding that the breach was committed by the appellant-Corporation is contrary to the mandate in Section 14(1) of the Specific Relief Act and there is an error of law apparent on the face of the award which is stated to be made according to 'the law governing such cases'. The grant of this relief in the award cannot, therefore, be sustained.

Kvm

ARBP1335.13

14. The question now is of the relief which could be granted by the arbitrator on its finding that termination of the distributorship was not

validly made under Clause 27 of the Agreement. No doubt, the notice of termination of distributorship dated 11.3.1983 specified the several acts

of the distributor on which the termination was based and there were complaints to that effect made against the distributor which had the effect of prejudicing the reputation of the appellant-Corporation; and such acts would permit exercise of the right of termination of

distributorship under Clause 27. However, the arbitrator having held that Clause 27 was not available to the appellant-Corporation, the question of grant of relief on that finding has to proceed on that basis. In such a situation, the Agreement being revocable by either party in

accordance with Clause 28 by giving thirty days' notice, the only relief which could be granted was the award of compensation for the period of

notice, that is, 30 days. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is, therefore, entitled to compensation being the loss of earnings for the notice period of thirty days instead of restoration of the distributorship. The award

has, therefore, to be modified accordingly. The compensation for thirty days notice period from 11.3.1983 is to be calculated on the basis of earnings during that period disclosed from the records of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd."

26. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme

Court in the case of E. Venkatakrishna vs. Indian Oil Corporation and Anr., reported in (2000) 7 SCC 764 and in particular paragraphs 6 & 8 of the said

judgment.

27. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was not only adamant in tendering the resignation but also was not even ready to

restore the distribution of the gas inspite of the repeated requests made by the respondent. The petitioner has throughout in the correspondence has accepted that he had tendered resignation and it was a matter of record that after acceptance of such resignation by the respondent, the petitioner had surrendered all the articles under the inventory made by the respondent and, the balance

Kvm

ARBP1335.13

amount was released by the respondent to the petitioner. Even after making such

payment, a letter was addressed by the petitioner. The petitioner has not disputed the fact of tendering resignation by the petitioner and acceptance thereof by the

respondent.

28. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the learned arbitrator has considered all the evidence on record and also the provisions of the contract and had interpreted the contract which interpretation was a possible interpretation.

This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and cannot substitute the

interpretation of the learned arbitrator by another interpretation.

29. A perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner had tendered resignation citing various reasons. The respondent had requested the petitioner to continue the distribution of the gas supply. There were meetings held

between the parties. The petitioner had abruptly stopped the distribution of gas

supply though the respondent had requested them to continue the same till an alternate arrangement was made. The purpose of providing 30 days' notice in clause 29 of the contract was for the purpose of the respondent making an

alternate arrangement for supply of the gas to the consumers so that there was continuity of gas supply without any disruption.

30. The petitioner, in their own correspondence, have repeatedly accepted that the petitioner had tendered resignation for various reasons such as attack/assault by the mob which according to the petitioner was a threat to the family of the proprietor of the petitioner, to their employees and to the property. The petitioner even did not accept the request of the respondent to continue the supply of gas so

Kvm

ARBP1335.13

as to enable the respondent to make an alternate arrangement. The petitioner

contended that they had already tendered the resignation and was not bound to give 30 days' notice or to restore the gas supply. I am thus not inclined to accept

the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contract was terminated by the respondent or that there was duress and/or coercion on the part of the respondent. In view of the acceptance of resignation of the petitioner by the

respondent, the contract came to an end.

31. The petitioner did not dispute that the resignation of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent ig and thereafter the petitioner has returned all the articles, goods which were supplied to the petitioner by the respondent. The petitioner had signed the inventory note. The respondent had already appointed an

alternate agency for the purpose of continuing the supply of the gas to the consumers of the petitioner immediately on the petitioner abruptly stopping the distribution. The petitioner never raised any objection in the respondent

appointing an alternate agency for supply of the gas to the consumers of the

petitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner had placed on record that the proprietor of the petitioner had sent his son with the keys of the shop to the respondent. A

perusal of the record clearly establishes that the petitioner had tendered resignation due to their own problems and the resignation was thus rightly accepted by the respondent.

32. A perusal of the statement of claim filed by the petitioner clearly indicates that the petitioner had not challenged the alleged termination of the agreement. The petitioner had only applied for declaration that the acceptance of the resignation is null and void. The petitioner did not claim for any damages. A perusal of the record indicates that the learned arbitrator has considered the entire

Kvm

ARBP1335.13

evidence and has interpreted the terms of the contact. This Court cannot re-

appreciate the evidence and cannot interfere with the finding rendered by the learned arbitrator since the same are not perverse. This Court cannot substitute the

interpretation of contract made by the learned arbitrator which interpretation is possible by substituting the same by another interpretation. The award impugned by the petitioner, in my view, is a well reasoned award and is passed after

considering the evidence and submissions made by both the parties.

33. In my view, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation (supra) is applicable to the facts of this case. Even if the petitioner

would have claimed for specific performance of the agreement, no specific performance could have been granted by the learned arbitrator in view of the fact

that the contract awarded to the petitioner of distribution of the gas was the one for rendering personal service. In my view, the petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

[R.D. DHANUKA, J.]