M/S Vashisht Oil Carrier vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 2818 Del

$~28
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO 99/2015

%                         Date of decision : 8th April, 2015

       M/S VASHISHT OIL CARRIER          ..... Appellant
                     Through  Mr. Vireshwar Tyagi, Adv.

                   Versus

       INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD & ANR... Respondents
                     Through Mr. Saran Suri, Mr. Gunjan
                             Kumar, Mr. A. Khurana,
                             Advs. along with Mr. Sanjay
                             P. Khare, officer of IOCL.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

                      JUDGMENT (ORAL)

CMs6264-6265/2015 Allowed subject to just exceptions.

FAO 99/2015

1. The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 9th March, 2015 whereupon the learned Trial Court has dismissed the appellant's application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. The appellant was given a contract for operating six tank trucks for transporting the MS(Petrol) and HSD(Diesel) of the respondent which was valid upto 9th April, 2015.

3. Vide order dated 8th December, 2014, the respondent

terminated the said contract and black listed the appellant for a period of two years w.e.f. 8th December, 2014 on the ground of tampering with security locks, pilferage, adulteration and maligning the reputation of the company under Clause ITDG 8.1.

4. On 7th January, 2015, the appellant invoked the arbitration clause and called upon the respondent to appoint an arbitrator. In the meantime, the appellant moved an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act for permission to operate the remaining tanker trucks and to participate in the forthcoming tenders/bids.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under the agreement, only one truck tanker involved in the pilferage or adulteration can be blacklisted and the appellant has right to operate the remaining truck tankers. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant be permitted to participate in the forthcoming tenders of the respondents.

6. There is no merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. Since the appellant's contract has been terminated by the respondent and he has been blacklisted, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit the appellant to operate the truck tankers or to participate in the forthcoming tenders. There is no infirmity in the dismissal of the appellant's application by the learned Trial Court. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.

J.R. MIDHA, J APRIL 8, 2015/dk