SURINDER PAL SINGH Vs. HPCL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since parties to all these cases are common and the questions that arise for consideration are inter-related, the same were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant in RFA No.186/2001, was appointed a dealer by the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ("HPCL" for short), who happens to be the appellant in cross-appeal No.283/2001. An agreement dated 15th December, 1981 governed the relationship between the parties. On 29th November, 1999, HPCL appears to have conducted an inspection at the petrol pump of the plaintiff and taken samples for conduct of certain tests. A show cause notice soon thereafter was issued to the plaintiff on 30th December, 1999, alleging that the samples did not meet the required specification. The plaintiff tried to clarify his stand, which failed to impress the HPCL, resulting in the suspension of supply of oil to the petrol pump.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff invoked the arbitration Clause, appearing in the Dealership Agreement. In response to the request made by him, the Chairman and Managing Director of the HPCL, appointed Sh. S.P. Chaudhary, General Manager (North Zone) as the sole arbitrator in the case, who entered upon the reference on 29th May, 2000. The arbitration proceedings appear to have commenced in August, 2000 and were adjourned from time to time. Since the proceedings could not be completed within a period of 10 months, as required under the arbitration clause, the plaintiff appears to have intimated to the arbitrator that the same could not be continued beyond the said period. An application filed by the plaintiff under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") before the District Judge, Saharanpur, was subsequently dismissed as infructuous.