[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
J V Baruni vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Thro' ... on 10 December, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3755/2012 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3755 of 2012
==========================================================
J V BARUNI
Versus
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD THRO' PRINCIPAL OFFICER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRADEEP PATEL(642) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. M R BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE M R BHATT & CO.(5953) WITH MR
MUNJAAL M BHATT(8283) ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 10/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Patel, learned advocate appearing
for the appellant and Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior advocate
appearing for the defendant no.1 and perused the record.
2. This appeal under Section-37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed challenging the arbitral
award dated 18.03.2004, allowing the claim of the respondent
namely Indian Oil Corporation Limited [IOC] for an amount of
Rs.1,80,57,624/- with 12% interest from 08.11.2000 till the
date of payment. The recovery against the respondent/
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3755/2012 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
appellant herein has been ordered by the learned Arbitrator
with the findings in the award as under:-
"Findings:-
(i) It is apparent from the joint reconciliation statement
for the period 17/11/1997 to 13/06/2000 annexed as
Annexure-E to the statement of claim that the same has
been signed by officers of Claimant as well as Shri J.V
Baharooni, proprietor of M/s. J.V Baharooni. Respondent
has not denied that reconciliation was carried out jointly
or he has signed the same. Therefore the claim of the
Claimant for Rs.1,32,43,824/- is proved.
(ii) Claimant has annexed another reconciliation
statement carried out by Account Officer of Claimant for
the period July 1996 to June 2000, as Annexure-F. This
statement also covers the data mentioned in the joint
reconciliation Statement. As per this statement
Respondent has not deposited Rs.53,58,628/- in the
Claimant's account during the period July 1996 to
16/11/1997. The Claimant has filed the copies of Daily
Stock Registrar, Daily Stock Transfer Receipt, Bulk
Product Stock Ledger for the period July 1996 to
November 1997, Daily Collection Report for the period
22/11/1996 to 15/11/1997 and Bank Statement for the
period October 1996 to November 1997 alongwith written
statement dated 23/07/2003. Respondent has not denied
the correctness of these documents. Respondent has
submitted in Para 2.5 of the written statement that certain
deposits made by them in the year 1996-97 has not been
considered by the Claimant. However Respondent has not
submitted any supporting documents regarding the proof
of deposit made by them. By way of written submission
dated 06/12/2003 Respondent has submitted that they had
deposited Rs.44,801/- on 14/08/1997, however the same
has not been shown by the Respondent in the Joint
Reconciliation Statement. Respondent has submitted the
copy of DCR dated 14/08/1997, alongwith said written
submission. I have perused the Joint Reconciliation
Statement and found that submission of Respondent is
correct. Therefore, claim of the Claimant is proved only for
Rs.53,13,8271/-.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3755/2012 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
AWARD
In view of the foregoing facts and findings, I hereby hold
that the Claimant is entitled to recover from Respondent
Rs.1,80,57,624/- with 12% interest from 08/11//2000 till
the date of payment. Arbitration proceedings are
terminated herewith."
3. The dispute pertains to the non-deposits of dues of the
claimant by the respondent - appellant herein. It is recorded
by the learned Arbitrator that the appellant herein/
respondent had entered into an agreement with the claimant-
IOC dated 26.03.1996, for maintenance and haulage in
respect of Retail Outlet owned by the claimant at village
Gadu, District Junagadh. The life of the agreement was three
(03) years and hence, it had expired on 25.03.1999. It seems
that on a further communication made by the respondent/
appellant, the claimant permitted the respondent to continue
as contractor and new agreement dated 18.01.2000 was
executed between the claimant and respondent/appellant,
tenure of which was 01 year.
4. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the
Retail Outlet was operated by the respondent. The main job of
respondent - contractor was to sell MC/HSD through Retail
Outlet which was supplied by the claimant on the stock
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3755/2012 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
transfer basis against AC-5 challans. As per Clause 2(c) of
1996 agreement and as per Clause 16 of 2000 agreement, the
respondent was duty bound to deposit the sales proceeds in
the claimants bank account on daily basis.
5. The dispute arose about the dues of the claimant and the
arbitral tribunal recorded that a joint reconciliation of the
Sales Vs. Collection of the Retail Outlet for the period
17.11.1997 upto 30.06.2000 was carried out on 13 th & 14th
July 2000 wherein the respondent/ appellant had participated.
The joint reconciliation statement which shows that an
amount of Rs.1,32,43,824/- was less deposited in the bank
account of the claimant, had been signed by the respondent/
appellant himself and two Officers of claimant, namely Deputy
Manager (Sales) and the Account Officer. A subsequent
reconciliation for the period from 01/10/1996 to 16/11/1997
was carried out by the Account Officer of the claimant and an
amount of Rs.53,58,628/- was found to be less deposited by
the respondent/ appellant in the claimant's bank account.
6. It is recorded by the learned Arbitrator, as noted in the
findings extracted herein above, that the respondent had not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3755/2012 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
denied the reconciliation carried out jointly and that he had
signed the joint reconciliation statement. The claim of the
claimant for an amount of Rs.1,32,43,824/- is, thus, found to
be proved.
7. We may note that even the initial order of admission of
the present appeal dated 19.06.2014 records that possibly the
appeal may not deserve consideration against the award
insofar as it relates to Rs.1,32,43,824/- with interest at the
rate of 12% per annum.
8. It is, however, argued by the learned counsel for the
appellant/ respondent therein that the whole case of the
claimant that the respondent had admitted outstanding
amount of Rs.1,32,43,824/- vide letter 14.07.2000 was
disbelieved by this Court in the proceeding under Section-138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the appeal filed
under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
against the order of acquittal dated 12.09.2005 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Veraval in Criminal
Case No.2131 of 2000. The judgment and order dated
04.08.2015 passed in the appeal filed by the IOC/claimant,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3755/2012 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
against the acquittal order, has been placed before us to
strenuously argue that this Court has found with regard to the
preparation of the reconciliation statement, from the
deposition of Shri Sanjay Thokle, witness of IOC, it seems that
the reconciliation statement was prepared in the year 2002. It
is further noted by this Court that in absence of any evidence
having been brought on record to establish the actual date of
preparation of the reconciliation statement, it would be
hazardous to assume that the said statement was prepared
prior to the issuance of the cheques in question and that the
disputed cheuqes had been issued in respect of the
reconciliation statement.
9. The submission is that this Court has disbelieved the
case of IOC of two cheques having been issued by the
appellant herein in furtherance of the letter dated 14.07.2000,
which was produced by the IOC before the learned Arbitrator
to submit that the appellant/ respondent had admitted his
liability. This Court has recorded in the judgment in appeal
that from a perusal of the letter dated 14.07.2000, though it
appears that the accused (appellant) has admitted the liability
of Rs.1,32,43,821/- and had also given a schedule of payment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3755/2012 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
till realization of the said amount, but if at all any cheque had
been issued for part payment of the said amount, the same
would certainly have found mention in the said
communication. It is also noted by this Court that the notice
of dishonour had already been served upon the respondent/
appellant herein prior to the issuance of the said letter.
10. Based on these findings, it was argued that once this
Court has disbelieved the issuance of cheques infurtherance
of the letter dated 14.07.2000 or vice versa, which were
allegedly dishonoured by the bank concerned, the findings
returned by the learned Arbitrator of any outstanding against
the appellant cannot be sustained.
11. It is vehemently argued before us that the judgment and
order dated 04.08.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.462 of
2006 in the matter of complaint under Section-138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 would have bearing on the
findings returned in the arbitral award.
12. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
needs no deliberation and deserves to be rejected out-rightly
for the simple reason that though the letter dated 14.07.2000
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3755/2012 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
was produced before the learned Arbitrator as a document to
show an admission of claim on the part of the
respondent/appellant, but the same has not been relied upon
nor even referred to in the findings returned by the learned
Arbitrator, to reach at the conclusion of the claim of the
claimant for Rs.1,32,43,824/- stood proved.
13. This is apparent from the extract of the findings noted
herein before. The arbitral award is based on the joint
reconciliation statement for the period from 17.11.1997 to
30.06.2000, which was duly signed by the respondent showing
the outstanding of Rs.1,32,43,824/- and the signature of the
respondent/appellant has not been denied. We, therefore, do
not find any good ground to attach any error, even an error of
law and fact to the findings returned by the learned
Arbitrator.
14. In so for as the observations made in the judgment and
order dated 04.08.2015 about the opinion drawn by the trial
Court that the cheques in question [allegedly dishonoured]
had not been issued towards the legally enforceable debt,
suffice is to say that the said finding has no bearing on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3755/2012 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
findings the arbitration award is concerned, which is based on
the evidence placed before the learned Arbitrator.
15. It may also not be out of place to mention here that the
appeal filed by the claimant has been dismissed accepting the
contention of the respondent therein [appellant herein] to the
effect that the Officer of the Company who lodged the
complaint was not duly authorized to file the complaint and,
as such, the complaint itself was not tenable.
16. As regards the remaining amount of Rs.53,58,628/-
claimed by the claimant, pertinent is to note that the
respondent had produced the daily collection report of a total
amount of Rs.44,801/- and the same has been deducted from
the claim amount of Rs.53,58,628/- to arrive at the balance
amount of Rs.53,13,827/- for the claim period from July 1996
to June 2000. The outstanding dues for the period from July
1996 to June 2000 had been proved by the claimant by filing
the copies of daily stock register, daily stock transfer receipts,
bulk product stock ledger for the period from July 1996 to
November 1997, daily collection report for the period from
22.11.1996 to 15.11.1997 as also the bank statement for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3755/2012 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
period from October 1996 to November 1997 alongwith
written statement dated 23.07.2003.
17. A categorical finding has been returned by the learned
Arbitrator that the respondent had not denied the correctness
of the above noted documents. It is also noted by the learned
Arbitrator, while drawing conclusion of outstanding amount of
Rs.53,13,827/- towards the respondent, that though the
respondent had contended in paragraph- 2.5 of the written
statement about certain deposits made by them in the year
1996-97, and the said deposits had not been considered by the
claimant, but the respondent had not submitted any
supporting document regarding the proof of the said deposits
made by them.
18. It is, thus, evident that the learned Arbitrator had
considered the deposits made by the respondent of
Rs.44,801/- on 14.08.1997 which has been brought on record
by way of written submission dated 06.12.2003, noticing that
though the same has not been shown by the respondent in the
joint reconciliation statement, but in view of the copy of daily
collection report dated 14.08.1997 submitted by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3755/2012 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
respondent alongwith his written submission, the said amount
was required to be deducted or set off against the outstanding
dues.
19. All these findings of fact returned by the learned
Arbitrator are based on the evidence on record. It is not the
case of the appellant that any material evidence produced by
the appellant has been ignored by the learned Arbitrator or
the findings have been returned based on some extraneous
material. It is also not the case of the appellant that the
findings of the learned Arbitrator about the outstanding dues
are without any cogent evidence. None of the available
grounds could be agitated so to attach any illegality much-less
patent illegality in the arbitral award.
20. In view of the above discussion, we do not find it a fit
case for interference. The appeal stands dismissed, being
devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
A. B. VAGHELA
