IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 7th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1521 OF 2019 (AA) BETWEEN:
SRI.P.S.ADINARAYANA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O.LATE P.SATYANARAYANA PROPRIETOR M/S.P.SATYANARAYANA AND CO.
HPCL DEALER, NO.136, S.C.ROAD SESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU – 560 020.
(BY SRI.K.SUMAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. M/S.HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
... APPELLANT A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD MUMBAI – 400 020.
REGIONAL OFFICE AT:
NO.77, OLD MADRAS ROAD DOORAVANINAGAR POST KRISHNARAJAPURAM BENGALURU – 560 016.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER – RETAIL AND DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER - RETAIL M/S.HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., NO.77, OLD MADRAS ROAD DOORAVANINAGAR POST KRISHNARAJAPURAM BENGALURU – 560 016.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(i) (b) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, AGAINST THE JUDGMETN AND ORDER DATED 25.01.2019 PASSED IN A.A.NO.219/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (SCCH-19), DISMISSING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPLICANT U/S 9 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The case of the appellant is that he is the proprietor of M/s.P.Satyanarayana & Company and dealer of petroleum, diesel and allied products of first respondent – M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. He was running business since 1959. Alleging certain acts of violations of terms of contract, a show cause notice was issued to him on 03.02.2018, to show cause as to why action as deemed fit under the provisions of the Dealership Agreement dated 07.01.2014 should not be taken in view of the irregularities mentioned in the relevant clauses therein. A reply was furnished. The same was answered by the second respondent on 19.04.2018 stating that the reply is not satisfactory and advised the appellant to meet the concerned General Manager. On the apprehension that the Dealership Agreement would be terminated, the appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim injunction to restrain the respondents or any of their officials or subordinates from terminating the Dealership Agreement dated 07.01.2014. By the impugned order, the application was dismissed as being premature. Hence, this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that none of the allegations made against the appellant are true. They are factually incorrect. That in the guise of terminating the Dealership Agreement, a show cause notice has been issued. Even the reply to the same has not been considered appropriately. Therefore, an injunction be granted against the respondents.
3. The same is disputed by the respondents through their statement of objections. They have indicated therein that since certain irregularities was noticed, a show cause notice was issued. That in terms of the agreement, an enquiry has to be conducted and only thereafter, the respondents are entitled to take action as deemed necessary. Since the enquiry is not yet completed, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application, as being premature. Therefore, it is pleaded that an injunction cannot be granted to prevent the enquiry proceedings from going on and that the respondents be permitted to proceed further with the enquiry in accordance with the dealership agreement.
4. In view of the statement of objections filed, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. In terms of the impugned order, the application has been rejected as being premature. The enquiry is still under progress. Only after completion of the enquiry, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed further in the matter.
5. Under these circumstances, we find no good ground to interfere in the impugned order.
However, the apprehension of the appellant is that in case the contract is terminated, then he will not have any remedy whatsoever. The same is countered by the respondents who states that there is a provision of an appeal to the Dispute Redressal Forum, which shall be filed within 30 days of the said order.
6. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that since a provision of appeal is provided, the same would protect the interest of the appellant. Hence, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE VMB/MPK