INDIAN OIL CORPN LTD Vs. SANJAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application under S.20 of the Arbitration Act having been moved by the opposite party Sanjai Agarwal and another before IV Additional District Judge, Jaunpur, was registered as Suit No. 32 of 1984. It would appear that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited created an agency for supply and distribution of gas in favour of Sanjai Agarwal running M/s. Allied Gas Service, Jaunpur. It later cancelled such agency on the ground that the agency was obtained by practising fraud and misrepresentation upon the Indian Oil Corporation Limited regarding eligibility of the applicant for such agency. The two specific allegations in that case are that Sanjai Agarwal concealed that he is self employed, being partner in firm, and that he also made wrong representation that he is not paying income-tax. The case of the revisionist is that but for the misrepresentation, fraud and material suppression the opposite party would not be eligible for the agency, as such agencies are meant for certain categories of persons in which the opposite party is not covered. The revisionist, therefore, cancelled the agency of the applicant and stopped gas supply. The opposite party was called upon to deliver complete charge with empty cylinders and filled cylinders etc. ANother person was granted gas agency, so that the consumers may not suffer.

(2.) IT is not in dispute before this Court that the revisionist can create a number of agencies and distributors for supply of gas cylinders in any district and there is no restriction to that. IT would appear that opposite party wrote back that Sanjai Agarwal is ill, staying elsewhere and the charge will be given if someone is deputed on a future date. In the meanwhile Sanjai Agarwal and his Allied Gas Service filed the aforesaid suit. A prayer for injunction was also made. Injunction was granted allowing opposite party's application 5-C and rejecting the objection 28-C and the application 24-C of the present revisionist. The revision No. 663 of 1984 is directed against the same.

(3.) THE defendants i.e. present revisionists' stand before the said Court was that Cl.27(b) of the agreement was attracted empowering it to terminate the distributorship. THE plaintiff's i.e. present opposite party's stand was that the termination order was illegal and void and also violated the principles of natural justice. It was also maintained by the plaintiff-opposite party that he signed blank forms of the agreement and the fillings where ever they have been made were made subsequently. THE Court below observed that prima facie the contention of the plaintiff-opposite party cannot be wholly baseless, when it is found that some of the blank spaces in the agreement, which should necessarily be filled remained blank. THE Court below further observed that the question requires evidence to be recorded before the rival contentions of the parties can be fully appreciated and adjudicated upon. THErefore, it is not possible to decide the question of jurisdiction off hand, nor can it be confidently predicated that the agreement was executed and signed by the plaintiff 1 at Delhi, nor it can be adjudicated at present stage that it was signed blank and details in Cl. 36 were filled in subsequently withus the consent of the plaintiff. THE Court below, therefore, rejected the application for adjudication of jurisdiction matter and aggrieved from the same the revision No. 665 of 1984 has been filed by the revisionist. It would be found that the Court below has not adjudicated one way or the other the question of jurisdiction and has simply deferred the matter. In this context the revisionist's counsel stated that at present he does not press revision No. 665 of 1984 and may raise such pleas later at appropriate stage. Otherwise also when there is no adjudication by the Court below on the matter of jurisdiction one way or the other and it has simply deferred the matter, at this stage Revision No. 665 of 1984 would not have been entertainable. This observation I am only making casually and I may hasten to add that when the very revision is not pressed at this stage, the occasion for any such observation otherwise does not arise.