[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Ms Cmc Sharub Enterprises Private ... vs General Manager I C Lpg S D on 21 May, 2026
Arb Appln No. 1029 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-05-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Arb Appln No. 1029 of 2026
MS CMC Sharub Enterprises Private Limited
Represented by its Director, Desiappan
Shanmugavel, S/o. Desiappan,14/4D, Jains
Sunderbans, Gurusamy Road, Nolambur, Chennai
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
General Manager I C LPG S D
Southern Regional Office,
Indian Oil Corporation Limited, No.139, Uthamar
Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:- to grant an order of INTERIM DIRECTION, directing the Respondent,
to grant LPG load for transportation through Tank Truck bearing Reg. No. TN
88 B 6116, TN 88 A 8026, TN 88 A 8038 and TN 88 A 6577, in accordance
with the Letter of Acceptance dated 05.09.2025, until the dispute between
Applicant and Respondents is resolved through arbitration and any other interim
measure as this Honble Court.
__________
Page1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb Appln No. 1029 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Ramesh
For Respondent(s): Mr.Md.Fayaz Ali
ORDER
This Application has been filed to grant an order of interim direction,
directing the Respondent, to grant LPG load for transportation through Tank
Truck bearing Reg. No. TN 88 B 6116, TN 88 A 8026, TN 88 A 8038 and TN
88 A 6577, in accordance with the Letter of Acceptance dated 05.09.2025, until
the dispute between Applicant and Respondent is resolved through arbitration.
2. The applicant had entered into an agreement with the respondent on
19.09.2025. In terms of the agreement, the work order was issued on 12.10.2025
with respect of the vehicles bearing Registration Nos. TN 88 A 8086 and TN 88
A 8038, on 26.10.2025 with respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN
88 B 6116, and on 12.11.2025 with respect of the vehicle bearing Registration
No. TN 88 A 6577.
3. Thereafter, the applicant moved the authorities under the Motor
Vehicles Act for transfer of the Registration Certificates in his name in respect
of the vehicles concerned in this application. The authorities recorded the
__________
Page2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
transfer in the RC Books on 24.12.2025, 20.01.2026 & 21.01.2026. Having
obtained the transfer in his name, the applicant approached the PESO authorities
and got the licences mutated in his name from the name of the original owner
on 09.01.2026 and 23.01.2026.
4. The respondent thereafter issued a notice calling upon the applicant to
explain the delay in carrying out the mutation in the Registration Certificates as
well as the PESO licences. They had also held out that they would terminate the
agreement entered into between the parties on 19.09.2025. As the agreement
between the parties contains an arbitration clause, the vehicle operator is before
this Court invoking Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
5. When the matter was listed yesterday, I had directed Mr. Ramesh to
serve papers on Mr. Md.Fayaz Ali. This was to enable Mr.Md.Fayaz Ali to get
instructions from the respondent and the matter was listed today for hearing.
6. I heard Mr.Ramesh, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Md.Fayaz Ali
counsel for the respondent.
__________
Page3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. The nature of the business carried on by the applicant is such that the
vehicles contracted with the respondents cannot be put to any other use except
for transportation of the products of the respondent. Had the delay in carrying
out the mutations fallen within the scope and control of the applicant, I would
certainly not have granted the interim order. The narration of dates set out above
clearly points out that the delay in carrying out the mutation of the Registration
Certificates as well as the PESO licences was entirely within the jurisdiction of
the authorities functioning under the Motor Vehicles Act and the PESO
authorities. Despite the fact that the applicant had moved with alacrity there are
certain things, which falls within the control of the Governmental authorities,
that are not under the control of the applicant.
8. Prima facie, I am satisfied that the delay was not at the instance of the
applicant. If the agreement is terminated, the applicant would be put to
irreparable loss and prejudice, since the entire investment made by the applicant
was only for making the vehicles ready for the usage by the respondent.
9. Apart from this, there is also a larger public interest involved in the
dispute. The agreement pertains to transportation of goods manufactured by the
respondent. In case there is any stoppage in transportation, it will have a
__________
Page4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deleterious effect on the supply of essential materials to the public. This Court,
while granting interim order would also have to take that aspect into
consideration.
10. In the light of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to the
respondent to grant LPG load to the vehicles in respect of which the applicant
had entered into agreements with the respondent.
11. Call this matter on 22.06.2026 to enable Mr. Md.Fayaz Ali to file
counter.
21-05-2026
SHR/SRN
__________
Page5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.
SHR/SRN
21-05-2026
(1/3)
__________
Page6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
