LPA-1213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others M/s Preet Filling Station and others CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI CM-2528 which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 34 day CM-2530 which is duly supported by an affidavit, dealership agreement dated 18.02.1987 is taken on record. Main case 1. Patent, against learned Single Judge, 1213-2016 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others Versus Preet Filling Station and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sakshan Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) 2528-LPA-2016 For the good and valid reasons assigned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Accordingly, a delay of 34 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal is condoned. 2530-LPA-2016 For the good and valid reasons assigned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, dealership agreement dated 18.02.1987 is taken on record. Main case This is an intra-court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against an order and judgment dated learned Single Judge, vide which, the writ petition IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1213-2016 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.08.2025 Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others ….Appellants ….Respondents ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sakshan Mahajan, Advocate, For the good and valid reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed. Accordingly, a filing the accompanying appeal is condoned. For the good and valid reasons assigned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed, and the dealership agreement dated 18.02.1987 is taken on record. court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters dated 03.02.2016, passed by the , the writ petition preferred by .2025 For the good and valid reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed. Accordingly, a For the good and valid reasons assigned in the application, , and the court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters , passed by the preferred by AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.28 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA-1213 petitioner to the appellant 2. and judgment is that the writ petition to its filing view of the agreement executed between the parties. an award of the petitioner for restoration of accepted, but damages were granted. 3. asserts that outcome objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’). 14(1)(C) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, agreement between the parties is determinable in nature, it cannot be specifically enforced by the Court. While urged that law laid down Limited Vs. Amritsar Gas Service and others (1991) 1 SCC 533 thus, the impugned order and judgment is liable to set aside. 4. respondent No.1, while vehemently supporting the verdict rendered by the learned Single Judge, submits that, there is no error or perversity in the impugned judgment requiring interference. He further submits tha once the Arbitrator opined that termination of dealership 1213-2016 (O&M) -2- petitioner-respondent No.1 was disposed of appellant-Corporation to supply petroleum products to it. Concisely, the main ground to challenge the impugned order and judgment is that the writ petition itself was not maintainable, as prior to its filing, the petitioner had already invoked view of the agreement executed between the parties. dated 09.08.2005 was passed by the Arbitrator of the petitioner for restoration of the dealership in question , but damages were granted. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants that in the event, petitioner-respondent No.1 of the award, it could have availed the remedy of filing objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’). While referring 14(1)(C) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, agreement between the parties is determinable in nature, it cannot be specifically enforced by the Court. While urged that the learned Single Judge has apparently law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Limited Vs. Amritsar Gas Service and others (1991) 1 SCC 533 thus, the impugned order and judgment is liable to set aside. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner respondent No.1, while vehemently supporting the verdict rendered by the learned Single Judge, submits that, there is no error or perversity in the impugned judgment requiring interference. He further submits tha once the Arbitrator opined that termination of dealership respondent No.1 was disposed of, thereby, issuing a direction Corporation to supply petroleum products to it. ground to challenge the impugned order self was not maintainable, as prior , the petitioner had already invoked the arbitration clause, in view of the agreement executed between the parties. As a consequence, by the Arbitrator, whereby, claim the dealership in question was not earned counsel for the appellants vociferously respondent No.1 was aggrieved by the of the award, it could have availed the remedy of filing objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 While referring to the provision of Section 14(1)(C) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, he submits that once the agreement between the parties is determinable in nature, it cannot be specifically enforced by the Court. While resting his arguments, it is apparently failed to appreciate the by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Amritsar Gas Service and others (1991) 1 SCC 533, and thus, the impugned order and judgment is liable to set aside. learned Senior counsel for the petitioner- respondent No.1, while vehemently supporting the verdict rendered by the learned Single Judge, submits that, there is no error or perversity in the impugned judgment requiring interference. He further submits that once the Arbitrator opined that termination of dealership was not fair, the thereby, issuing a direction ground to challenge the impugned order self was not maintainable, as prior arbitration clause, in , , claim not vociferously the of the award, it could have availed the remedy of filing objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the provision of Section the agreement between the parties is determinable in nature, it cannot be it is failed to appreciate the Indian Oil Corporation and - respondent No.1, while vehemently supporting the verdict rendered by the learned Single Judge, submits that, there is no error or perversity in t , the AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.28 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA-1213 same ought to have Single Judge, in exercise of extra the direction upon the products to the petitioner 5. Court is of the considered view that the impugned order and judgment requires interference 6. take note of the fact that e Court by way of a writ petition the communication dated 02.05.2002, wherethr terminated. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, to enable terms of clause 69 of the agreement. No.1 inv appointed by the appellant 09.08.2005. Whereafter, the petitioner the doors of this Court commanding the way of the writ petition, which, as indicated above, has been disposed of. 7. Court, vide order dated 11.08 judgment. as petitioner availing the remedies, as enshrined in Section 34 of the Act. petitioner filed 1213-2016 (O&M) -3- ought to have been restored. In such circumstances Single Judge, in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction, has rightly issued the direction upon the appellant-Corporation products to the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties of the considered view that the impugned order and judgment requires interference, for the hereinafter recorded Before proceeding further with the matter, it is expedient to take note of the fact that even earlier, the petitioner had approached this by way of a writ petition (CWP-9562 the communication dated 02.05.2002, wherethr terminated. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, to enable the petitioner to raise the matter in issue before an Arbitrator terms of clause 69 of the agreement. Accordingly No.1 invoked the arbitration clause, and appointed by the appellant-Corporation, who passed 09.08.2005. Whereafter, the petitioner-respondent No.1, again knocked the doors of this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a Ma commanding the Corporation to resume supply way of the writ petition, which, as indicated above, has been disposed of. While issuing notice of motion vide order dated 11.08.2017, staye judgment. It is not in dispute that the award (supra) has attained finality, as petitioner-respondent No.1 did not choose to challenge the same, by availing the remedies, as enshrined in Section 34 of the Act. etitioner filed the writ petition, seeking restoration of the dealership, In such circumstances, the learned ordinary jurisdiction, has rightly issued Corporation to supply petroleum learned counsel for the parties at length, this of the considered view that the impugned order and judgment hereinafter recorded reasons. Before proceeding further with the matter, it is expedient to ven earlier, the petitioner had approached this 9562-2002), laying challenge to the communication dated 02.05.2002, wherethrough, its dealership was terminated. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, raise the matter in issue before an Arbitrator, in Accordingly, petitioner-respondent oked the arbitration clause, and the Arbitrator was duly , who passed an award dated respondent No.1, again knocked with a prayer for issuance of a Mandamus, to resume supply of petroleum products, by way of the writ petition, which, as indicated above, has been disposed of. hile issuing notice of motion, a Coordinate Bench of this stayed the operation of the impugned not in dispute that the award (supra) has attained finality, respondent No.1 did not choose to challenge the same, by availing the remedies, as enshrined in Section 34 of the Act. Instead, the writ petition, seeking restoration of the dealership, , the learned ordinary jurisdiction, has rightly issued to supply petroleum , this of the considered view that the impugned order and judgment Before proceeding further with the matter, it is expedient to ven earlier, the petitioner had approached this , laying challenge to ough, its dealership was terminated. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, , in respondent Arbitrator was duly an award dated respondent No.1, again knocked damus, , by a Coordinate Bench of this d the operation of the impugned not in dispute that the award (supra) has attained finality, respondent No.1 did not choose to challenge the same, by Instead, the writ petition, seeking restoration of the dealership, AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.28 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA-1213 which, in fact, was not even maintainable, for the reason that an award passed by the Arbitrator initiated under Section 34 of the A However, the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration the abovesaid position. observed that the Corporation did not opt to challenge the award. our mind, it was the petitioner, who was aggrieved by the award (supra), as its prayer for restoration of dealership, was not accepted. Thus, there was no plausible reason award. 8. does not find favour with the learned Single Judge, Accordingly allowed. 9. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA 05.08.202 Ak Sharma 1213-2016 (O&M) -4- which, in fact, was not even maintainable, for the reason that an award passed by the Arbitrator could only be interfered initiated under Section 34 of the Act, and However, the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration the abovesaid position. Further, the learned Single Judge has observed that the Corporation did not opt to challenge the award. , it was the petitioner, who was aggrieved by the award (supra), as its prayer for restoration of dealership, was not accepted. Thus, there plausible reason with the appellant In the wake of the position sketched out above, does not find favour with the impugned judgment, rendered by the learned Single Judge, as the same does not pass the test of legality Accordingly, the same is set aside. As a sequel, the instant appeal is Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable which, in fact, was not even maintainable, for the reason that an award could only be interfered with, in the proceedings and not by filing a writ petition. However, the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration Further, the learned Single Judge has also observed that the Corporation did not opt to challenge the award. But, to , it was the petitioner, who was aggrieved by the award (supra), as its prayer for restoration of dealership, was not accepted. Thus, there the appellant-Corporation to challenge the tion sketched out above, this Court impugned judgment, rendered by the does not pass the test of legality. the same is set aside. As a sequel, the instant appeal is Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Yes Yes/No which, in fact, was not even maintainable, for the reason that an award the proceedings not by filing a writ petition. However, the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration also But, to , it was the petitioner, who was aggrieved by the award (supra), as its prayer for restoration of dealership, was not accepted. Thus, there Corporation to challenge the this Court impugned judgment, rendered by the . the same is set aside. As a sequel, the instant appeal is AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.28 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document