ARB P No. 94/2025 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: Arb P No. 94/2025 Date of Pronouncement :14.11.2025 Uploaded on: 18.11.2025. M/s Hind Kashmir Service Station. …Petitioner Through: Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Advocate. V/s Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation and anr. …. Respondents Through: Mr. D C Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anuj Dewan Raina, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORDER 14.11.2025 (ORAL) 01. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. 02. The petitioner-M/S Hind Kashmir Service Station (Indian Oil Petrol Pump) in Jammu is operating a retail outlet of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. since 1960. The Memorandum of Agreement dated 17.10.2018 was executed between the parties for a period of 15 years and thereafter extendable yearly in terms of Clause 2 of the Agreement. The respondent Corporation, relying on an investigation and analysis report by Gilbarco Veeder-Root (GVR), on 18.10.2024 communicated to the petitioner alleged irregularities at the retail outlet, more particularly, tampering with a dispensing unit (S. No.201612001250), and track cut and soldiering rework on the CPU Card, and other damage, in order to manipulate fuel delivery, which is a critical irregularity under Marketing Discipline Guidelines of 2012 and, accordingly an explanation was sought from the petitioner within seven days. Sr. No. 07 ARB P No. 94/2025 03. The petitioner alleged that they are condemned unheard as there is violation of principle of natural justice. The petitioner was not provided with the whole material relied upon by the Corporation, including the OEM GVR email dated 05.07.2024 and the maintenance report for the dispensing unit. An opportunity was allegedly denied to the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses or lead their own evidence. 04. Apprehending termination of its dealership, the petitioner approached the court of learned Additional District Judge (Commercial Court), Jammu, by filing an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, wherein an interim order dated 28.10.2024 was passed in favour of the petitioner directing the respondents not to terminate the dealership agreement executed on 17.10.2018. 05. Accordingly, it is alleged that a dispute has arisen between the parties and in order to seek reference of the dispute, the petitioner invoked arbitration Clause 62 of the agreement dated 17.10.2018 and in terms thereof served a legal notice dated 18.01.2025 upon the respondents, calling upon them to appoint an independent arbitrator within 15 days. However, the respondents by their reply notice dated 11.02.2025 resisted the appointment of an independent Arbitrator. Hence, the petition at hand. 06. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents had caused appearance and filed their response contending, inter alia, that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner, before approaching this Court, was first required to avail the internal appellate remedy provided under Para 8.9 of Chapter 8 of the Marketing Disciplinary Guidelines (MDG), 2012. And since the petitioner has already filed an application under Section 9 of the Act against the investigation and analysis report by Gilbarco Veeder-Root (GVR), as such, the petition at hand is not maintainable. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 08. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated 18.01.2025, is not disputed. 07. Thus, in the given circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents, as always, fairly submits that let an arbitrator be appointed. But, since the claim that is sought to be made by the petitioner is vehemently disputed/ denied, it is ARB P No. 94/2025 submitted that respondent be granted liberty to raise all possible pleas/ objections before the arbitral tribunal/ arbitrator in this regard. 08. Accordingly, in the wake of the position sketched out above and in terms of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is allowed. And, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Sunit Gupta, Retired District & Sessions Judge (Mobile No.:9419162400) is appointed as the sole arbitrator. Who shall proceed with the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act. And to make an award within the time provided in the Act itself after charging the prescribed fee along with incidental expenses to be shared by the parties. The respondents are at liberty to raise all the objections as regards the subject matter before the learned Arbitrator. 09. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator. (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu 14.11.2025 Raj Kumar Raj Kumar 2025.11.18 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document