R. C. Lahoti ( 1 ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of suits Nog. 421-A/88 and 440a/88 both arising between the same parties out of the same transaction/cause of action. ( 2 ). Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , the petitioner/objector is an Oil Companyengaged inmanufacturing, sale and distribution of liquified petrol gas and otherproducts. By an agreement dated 6. 4. 77 entered into between it and the respondent M/s. Shriram Gas Service, the latter was appointed as the distributor for certain areas. ( 3 ). Here itself, it maybe relevant to extract and reproduce Clauses 27 and 28 of the contract between the parties. They are as under: "27. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, the Corporation shall also be at liberty at its entire discretion to terminate this Agreementforwith upon or at any time after the happening of any of the following eventsnamely:- (n) If the Distributor shall either by himself or by his servants or agentscommit or suffer to be committed any act which, in the opinion of theregional Manger of the Corporation for the time being at NEW DELHIwhose decision in that behalf shall be final, is prejudicial to the interestor good name of the Corporation or its products, the Regional Managershall not be bound to give reasons for such decision. 28. Without prejudice to the foregoing provision or anything to the contraryherein contained, either of the parties hereto, namely, the Corporation or thedistributor, shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement by giving thirty days notice to the other party without assigning any reason for such termination. " ( 4 ). Clause 37 of the agreement provides for adjudication by arbitration of anydispute or differences of any nature whatsoever arising between the parties out ofthe contract. ( 5 ). On 13. 2. 1982, the claimant petitioner served the respondent with a notice to the following effect: "regd. AD/upc/by hand No. LIG/114m/s Shri Ram Gas Serviceindian Distributor,r. Market B-21/1 Kamachhavaranasi. Re: INDANE DISTRIBUTORSHIP AT VARANASIDear Sirs,reference may please be made to our LPG distributorship agreement dated6. 4. 1977 executed between you and the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Clause 27of the distributorship agreement reads as under:"27. AD/upc/by hand No. LIG/114m/s Shri Ram Gas Serviceindian Distributor,r. Market B-21/1 Kamachhavaranasi. Re: INDANE DISTRIBUTORSHIP AT VARANASIDear Sirs,reference may please be made to our LPG distributorship agreement dated6. 4. 1977 executed between you and the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Clause 27of the distributorship agreement reads as under:"27. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, the Corporation shall also be at liberty at its entire discretion to terminate this Agreementforthwith upon or at nays time after the happening of any of the followingevents namely:- (n) If the Distributor shall either by. himself or by his servants or agents commit or suffer to be committed any act which, in the opinion of theregional manager of the Corporation for the time being at NEW DELHIwhose decision in that behalf shall be final,is prejudicial to the interestor good name of the Corporation or its products, the Regional Managershall not be bound to give reasons for such decision. It has come to our knowledge that you or your servants/agents have committed the following: (i) that you arein the habit of giving ex showroom deliveries of refills, andout of turn supplies of refills to customers. (ii) on a surprise check shortage of 22 cylinders and 1237 pressure regulators was found. (iii) that you are neither weighing nor checking the leakage with soapsolution before supplying the filled cylinders to the customers. (iv) that complaints have been received regarding leakage of cylinders. resulting in accidents. The above acts jointly and severally in my opinion are acts which are prejudicial to the interest and good name of the Corporation or its products andaccordingly in exercising my right under the above noted clause, I herebyorder that the LPG distributorship agreement stands forthwith terminatedand canceled and you shall cease to be our LPG distributor at Varanasi withimmediate effect. You are hereby called upon to settle all you accounts with the Corporation andimmediately handover, return and redeliver the entire stock of LPG filled/empty cylinders/equipments lying with you. In this connection my dulyauthorised representative would be calling on you shortly. Yours faithfully,for and on behalf of INDIAN OIL CORP LTD (J. S. OBEROI)GENERAL MANAGER ( 6 ). Consequent to the service of the notice, the distributorship of the respondentstood terminated and the claimant-petitioner called upon the respondent to deliverthe entire stock of LRG filled or unfilled cylinders, equipment etc. lying with therespondent. ( 7 ). Disputes arose between the parties. Yours faithfully,for and on behalf of INDIAN OIL CORP LTD (J. S. OBEROI)GENERAL MANAGER ( 6 ). Consequent to the service of the notice, the distributorship of the respondentstood terminated and the claimant-petitioner called upon the respondent to deliverthe entire stock of LRG filled or unfilled cylinders, equipment etc. lying with therespondent. ( 7 ). Disputes arose between the parties. They were REFERRED TO for adjudication by the Arbitrator in accordance with the Order 2. 3. 1984 passed by this Court on a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. ( 8 ). The claimant had preferred TO a claim for Rs. 2,31,520. 35 and interest at the rate of 18% p. a. by way of compensation for the value of the stock which was not delivered back by the respondent to the petitioner. 8. 1 The Arbitrator has adjudicated upon this. claim by awarding only Rs. 3297. 15. 8. 2 This award is the subject matter of challenge by the petitioner in suit No. 421-A/88. The petitioner claims enhancement of the amount and award of interest-previous, pendente lite and future. ( 9 ). The respondent Sri Ram Gas Service has also preferred TO its claim and counterclaims, the only relevant out of which being - "immediate restoration of mydistributorship of LPG at Varanasi". 9. 1 The Arbitrator has awarded "the LPG distributorship of the claimants berestored by the respondent". 9. 2 This award is subject matter of challenge in Suit No. 440/88. ( 10 ). The learned Counsel for the petitioner-objector has placed strong andsingular reliance on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in IOC Ltd. v. Amritsargas Service and Others, 1991 (1) SCC 533 . It is submitted by the learned Counsel thatthe Arbitrator could not have awarded reinstatement of distributorship whichtantamounts to specific performance of a terminable contract and runs counter to thelaw laid down by the Supreme Court in the abovesaid case. ( 11 ). The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner applies onall the fours of the case at hand both on law and facts. ( 12 ). In the case of Amritsar Gas Service (supra) there was distributorshipagreement dated 1. 4. 1976 made between IOC and Amritsar Gas Service appointingthe latter as distributor of liquified petrol in cylinders for household consumption. 12. ( 12 ). In the case of Amritsar Gas Service (supra) there was distributorshipagreement dated 1. 4. 1976 made between IOC and Amritsar Gas Service appointingthe latter as distributor of liquified petrol in cylinders for household consumption. 12. 1 Clause 27 of the Agreement provided for termination of the agreement bythe Corporation forthwith on the happening of any of the certain specified events. Clause 28 permitted either party without prejudice to the provisions of clause 27oranything to the contrary contained in the agreement to terminate the agreement bythirty days notice to the other party without assigning any reason for such termination. Clause 37 provided for adjudication of any dispute or difference of any natureby arbitration. In short, the agreement between the parties in Arnritsar Gas Service scase was the same agreement as it is in the case at hand. 12. 2 By letter dated 11. 3. 1983, the distributorship was terminated underclause 27 stating the reasons therefor. 12. 3 Termination was disputed by Amritsar Gas Service and the matter cameto be REFERRED TO for adjudication by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator held the Corporation guilty of breach of contract and on that basis awarded the breach beingremedied by restoration of distributorship and payment of compensation. 12. 4 Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that it was a case ofbreach of contract and remedies flowing therefrom. It was to be decided within therealm of private law rights governed by the general law relating to contract withreference to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act providing for non-enforceabilityof certain types of contracts and further the question of public law based on Article14 of the Constitution did not arise for decision. Vide para 12, their Lordships haveheld:"sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act specifies the contractswhich cannot be specifically enforced, one of which is a contract which is in itsnature determinable . In the present case, it is not necessary to refer to the otherclauses of sub Section (1) of Section 14, which also may be attracted in thepresent case since clause (c) clearly applies on the finding read with reasonsgiven in the award itself that the contract by its nature is determinable. In the present case, it is not necessary to refer to the otherclauses of sub Section (1) of Section 14, which also may be attracted in thepresent case since clause (c) clearly applies on the finding read with reasonsgiven in the award itself that the contract by its nature is determinable. Thisbeing so granting the relief of restoration of the distributorship even on thefinding that the breach was committed by the appellant Corporation iscontrary to the mandate in Section 14 (1) of the Specific Relief Act and there isan error of law apparent on the face of the award which is stated to be madeaccording to the law governing such cases . The grant of this relief in theaward cannot, therefore, be sustained. " (underlyning by me)12. 5. Their Lordship then proceeded to examine that in spite of upholding thefinding of the Arbitrator that distributorship was not validly terminated underclause-27 of the Agreement, what was the relief to which the claimant was entitled. Their Lordship held vide para 14 :-"no doubt, the notice of termination of distributorship dated 11/03/1983specified the several acts of the distributor on which the termination wasbased and there were complaints to that effect made against the distributorwhich had the effect of prejudicing the reputation of the appellant Corporation; and such acts would permit exercise of the right of termination ofdistributorship under clause 27. However, the arbitrator having held thatclause 27 was not available to the appellant Corporation, the question of grantof relief on that finding has to proceed on that basis. In such a situation, theagreement being revokable by either party in accordance with clause 28 bygiving 30 days notice, the only relief which could be granted was the awardof compensation for the period of notice, that is, 30 days. The plaintiff-respondent 1 is, therefore, entitled to compensation being the loss of earningsfor the notice period of 30 days instead of restoration of the distributorship. The award has, therefore, to be modified accordingly. " ( 13 ). In the case at hand also, the notice of termination specifies the ground fortermination within the meaning of Clause 27 of the Agreement between the parties. The award has, therefore, to be modified accordingly. " ( 13 ). In the case at hand also, the notice of termination specifies the ground fortermination within the meaning of Clause 27 of the Agreement between the parties. Assuming that the reasons did not exist the only relief to which the respondentdistributor would have been entitled to was compensation for the loss of earningsfor the notice period of 30 days, as the agreement was in any case terminable byeither side subject to 30 days notice under Clause 28. In any case, the relief ofrestoration of distributorship could not have been awarded by the Arbitrator. ( 14 ). 1 may also notice a single bench decision. of this Court in Smt Sulochanauppal v. Shri Surinder Sheet Bhakri, AIR 1991 DELHI 138. The arbitration clausewas contained in an agreemernt to sell an immovable property and the prayer wasto refer a claim seeking specific performance for adjudication by arbitrator. Thiscourt has held: "an agreement to refer a dispute to arbitration, the effect of which would beto have an award directing specific performance of an agreement to sell, wouldhave for its object to defeat the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, especiallysections 10 and 20 thereof. It is clearly intended by the aforesaid provisionsthat it is only Courts and Courts alone who would have jurisdiction to grant orrefuse specific performance. In view of the provisions of Sections 10 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act readwith Sections 23 and 24 of the Contract Act. I am of the view that it is notpermissible to any arbitrator to give an award, directing specific performanceof an agreement to sell. Such an award would go contrary to the terms andspirit of the Specific Relief Act. ""petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for enforcement of anagreement to sell is not maintainable. " ( 15 ). The objections filed in suit No. 440/88 deserve to be allowed and the awarddirecting restoration of distributorship deservesto be set aside. ( 16 ). In so far as suit No. 421a/88 is concerned, the learned Counsel for theclaimant -petitioner has very fairly conceded during the course of hearing that inview of the conciliation statements drawn between the parties from time to timebefore the Arbitrator, the claimant is not justified in pressing for enhancement ofcompensation. However, she still maintained that interest on the quantum ofcompensation should been awarded by the Arbitrator. However, she still maintained that interest on the quantum ofcompensation should been awarded by the Arbitrator. As there is no law or contractnor any usage, permitting award of such interest, the petitioner s contention cannotbe accepted. The award in this regard has to be maintained as it is. ( 17 ). For the foregoing reasons, the objection petition in suit No. 440/88 isallowed. The award dated 17. 9. 1987 directing the LPG distributorship of theclaimant to be restored by the respondent is set aside. ( 18 ). The award dated 17. 9. 1987 awarding a sum of Rs. 3297. 15 to the claimant isupheld and is directed to be made a rule of the Court. Let a decree be drawnaccordingly. The award shall form part of the decree. ( 19 ). Both the suits stand disposed of. One copy each of this order shall be placed on record of both the suits. Objection in 440/1988 allowed. Award in 421-A/88 maintained.