S. MALLIGA Vs. THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge refusing to set aside the arbitral award passed by the second respondent/Arbitrator against the present appellant.

(2.) A Dealership Agreement was entered into between the appellant and the first respondent on 10.07.2000, whereby dealership of H.P. Gas was awarded to the appellant herein. Due to violation of the terms of the said dealership agreement, the dealership was terminated on 16.06.2008. The claim of the appellant before the Arbitrator was for restoration of the dealership, since the termination was illegal. A counter claim was filed by the first respondent seeking payment of Rs.10,80,028/ - with interest. The Arbitrator, by award dated 10.1.2009, upheld the order of termination of dealership and allowed the counter claim amount of Rs.10,80,028/ - along with interest of Rs.11,02,046.32 calculated up to 30.6.2008 @ 13% per annum.

(3.) Calling into question the said award, the appellant preferred an Original Petition. The learned Single Judge, in the order dated 20.11.2009, after considering the letter of the appellant dated 20.5.2002 addressed to the Regional Manager of the first respondent/company, admitting her liability to the extent of Rs.9,86,000/ -, which she offered to repay at the rate of Rs.30,000/ - per month from July, 2002, held that the Arbitrator was right in rejecting the claim of the appellant and allowing the counter claim of the first respondent. It was further held that there was nothing perverse in the finding of the Arbitrator and that the Award is passed based on the evidence on records, that is to say after considering the statement of accounts and other documents relied upon by both sides. The learned Single Judge also held that the finding of the Arbitrator is not assailed in terms of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. That apart, it was held by the learned Single Judge that the interest awarded by the Arbitrator at the rate of 13% per annum as against the claim of the first respondent at 18% per annum is reasonable.