Renujit Kaur & Another vs Union Of India & Another
2009 Latest Caselaw 3065 Del

15.
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+      W.P.(C) 2180/2008


                                     Date of decision: 7th August, 2009



       RENUJIT KAUR & ANR.                              ..... Petitioners
                       Through Mr. Pushkar Sood, Mr. Anshuman Sood
                       & Ms. Kanchan Bala, Advocates.


                     Versus


       UOI & ANR.                                         ..... Respondents
                          Through Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Ms. Harshita
                          Priyanka & Mr. Debojyoti Bhattacharya,
                          Advocates for respondent No. 2.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

       1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment?
       2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
       3. Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest ?


                                 ORDER

%

1. Subject matter of the present writ petition is the letter dated 22nd

July, 2005 issued by Indian Oil Corporation Limited terminating dealership

of the petitioner in respect of service station/petrol pump at Ring Road,

W.P. (C) No. 2180/2008 Page 1 Naraina, New Delhi. The said termination order has been passed in view

of alleged false affidavit submitted by Mr. Kishan Chand at the time when

he was inducted as a partner with Mr. Gurbaksh Singh on retirement of

Mr. Bahadur Singh. Mr. Bahadur Singh is the father of Mr. Gurbaksh

Singh.

2. The principal contention raised by the petitioners is that Mr. Bahadur

Singh was allotted a licence to operate and run a petrol pump at the said

site in 1969 and Mr. Gurbaksh Singh was inducted as a partner in 1973. It

is stated that Mr. Gurbaksh Singh was not aware and had no knowledge

that Mr. Kishan Chand already had a petrol pump in Ludhiana and had

furnished a false affidavit, the reason why the respondent No. 2-Indian Oil

Corporation Limited had cancelled the said dealership licence.

3. Counsel for the parties have brought to the notice of the Court that

the dealership agreement has an arbitration clause. The contentions

raised by the petitioners are factual and may require recording of oral

evidence and cross-examination.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in view of the said position had

asked for pass over to obtain instructions from the petitioner. Learned

counsel for the petitioner states that he has obtained instructions and the

petitioner will invoke the arbitration clause for reference of their claims

and disputes to arbitration. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2

admits that the agreement between them and the partnership firm of Mr.

W.P. (C) No. 2180/2008 Page 2 Gurbaksh Singh and Mr. Kishan Chand had an arbitration clause, viz.,

Clause 67. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 further states that if

any request for arbitration is made, the same will be considered. It is

further stated that if an arbitrator is appointed, he shall hold arbitration

proceedings at Delhi and an effort will be made to dispose of the

arbitration proceedings within a reasonable time.

5. The writ petition is accordingly dispose of with the liberty to the

petitioner to invoke the arbitration clause in accordance with law. The

arbitration proceedings will be without prejudice to the rights and

contentions of the parties and their respective stands. Parties will be at

liberty to raise all claims and contentions before the arbitrator including

the contentions raised in the pleadings in the present writ petition.

6. By order dated 18th March, 2008, this Court had passed interim

order that anything done pursuant to public notice dated 10th September,

2007 shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. By public notice

dated 10th September, 2007, the respondent No. 2 had invited applications

for a new dealer in respect of the petrol pump. The said interim order will

continue for a period of two months to enable the petitioner to move an

application before the learned arbitrator, if appointed, for interim

protection/stay or to approach the civil court under Section 9 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. During the period of two months,

the respondent No. 2 will be entitle to continue with the present

W.P. (C) No. 2180/2008 Page 3 arrangement under which they are operating the petrol pump or have a

fresh ad hoc arrangement for operation of the petrol pump without

creating any third party dealership rights.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Dasti to counsel for both parties.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

       AUGUST 07, 2009
       VKR




W.P. (C) No. 2180/2008                                         Page 4