KAMALAKANT M. TENDULKAR Vs. SR. REGIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act, for short) is to the judgment and order dated 7/5/2011 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, at Margao in Arbitration Application no.15/2019. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge, while dismissing the arbitration petition filed by the appellant has confirmed the award dated 9/7/2009 passed by the sole arbitrator.

(2.) The brief facts are that the aforesaid arbitration was initiated by the first respondent in which the appellant was the claimant no.1, while the second respondent was the claimant no.2. The first respondent had entered into a dealership agreement with Mr. Vishwamber K. Salkar (since deceased) who was appointed as retail outlet dealer from 1/12/1970 to 31/10/1986 to run a dealership in the name and style as M/s. Uma Service Centre, Vasco. Subsequently, the dealership was reconstituted by inducting the appellant as a minority partner holding 49% share and Vishwamber Salkar continued as a majority shareholder having a share holding of 51%. It appears that a dealership agreement was executed on 1/11/1987 between the parties. Mr. Vishwamber V. Salkar expired on 5/7/1997 and pending reconstitution of the dealership the supply to the retail outlet was continued purely on adhoc basis on the request of the appellant. According to the first respondent during the period of such ad hoc operation of the dealership there were several irregularities which were committed and on account of which there was no formal proposal for reconstitution submitted to the first respondent.

(3.) It appears that the first respondent issued a show cause notice to both the appellant and the second respondent on 5/4/2006 for breach of the various terms and conditions of the dealership agreement. After considering the reply, the first respondent terminated the dealership by letter dated 1/6/2006 which dispute was referred to the sole arbitrator. The appellant made a claim for restoration of the dealership and he being recognized as a sole proprietor/dealer of M/s. Uma Service Centre and for compensation etc.