Govind Mathur, J.—By executing an agreement the appellant carrier provided tank trucks to the respondent Oil Company to transport petroleum products. The Chief Operating Manager of the Oil Company under an order dt. 09.05.2007 blacklisted/banned four tank trucks of the carrier alongwith their crew from carrying petroleum products, being found tank truck No.RJ-27-G-1059 involved in malpractice. 2. By submitting an application as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1996”) the appellant carrier sought an interim injunction for staying blacklisting and all other consequence thereto. 3. To substantiate the relief as claimed under the application referred above it was contended that as per the guidelines prescribed under Annexure-1 appended to the agreement, no tank truck or its crew could have been blacklisted without holding an investigation as per the procedure prescribed by the company, however, learned District Judge, Udaipur by order impugned dt. 06.08.2007 rejected the application by holding that no inquiry was desirable in view of the fact that the petroleum products carried by the tank truck were seized being found adulterated. 4. In the instant appeal validity of the order aforesaid is questioned with the argument that as per the agreement executed between the parties, an investigation according to the procedure prescribed by the Oil Company is necessary for blacklisting, thus, the District Judge erred while holding that no such inquiry was desirable. 5. Learned counsel for the Oil Company while defending the order impugned urged that the adulterated petroleum product was seized by the police and police is already holding an investigation, therefore, no further inquiry is required in the instant matter. It is also said that an investigation was conducted by the company, but no material is available on record in support of that. 6. Heard counsel for the parties. 7. The Annexure-1 appended to the Bulk Petroleum Products Road Transport Agreement provides transport discipline guidelines and as per clause V(i) (b) “a Tank Truck caught for having indulged in malpractices shall be immediately suspended by the location-in-charge. However, an investigation shall be conducted as per the procedure of the company, and approval of the appropriate authority obtained before the Tank Truck is blacklisted”. However, an investigation shall be conducted as per the procedure of the company, and approval of the appropriate authority obtained before the Tank Truck is blacklisted”. Sub-clause (c) of clause V(i) provides that “on investigation, if it is proved that the Tank Truck crew alone is responsible for the malpractice/irregularity, then that particular Tank Truck alone shall be blacklisted alongwith the Tank Truck crew. However if the investigation reveals the complicity of the Carrier, then the whole contract comprising other Tank Trucks belonging to the concerned Carrier shall be cancelled and all Tank Trucks black listed along with the Tank Truck crew”. 8. From perusal of the provisions referred above it is apparent that before blacklisting all Tank Trucks alongwith their crew of a carrier an investigation as per the procedure prescribed by the company is necessary to reach at the conclusion that the carrier by its own complicity was involved in malpractice. 9. In the case in hand all the tank trucks alongwith their crew owned by the carrier are blacklisted, thus, it is apparent that the power is exercised by the petroleum company under sub-clause (c) of clause V(i) of the Annexure-1 appended with the agreement. The agreement and the conditions given in its annexures is absolutely independent to the police investigation. The District Judge, therefore, while deciding the application under Sec. 9 of the Act of 1996 was required to see about compliance of the provisions of the agreement. The finding given to the effect that the inquiry was not at all desirable in view of the fact that the adulterated petroleum product was seized is having no consequence in the instant matter. The Court could have examined on basis of the record that whether any investigation as per procedure prescribed was made or not and if made then whether only the crew of the tank truck concerned or the carrier himself was responsible and before blacklisting all tank trucks of the carrier alongwith their crew, adequate approval from the competent authority was taken or not. Learned District Judge instead of examining the matter as per the agreement ignored the requirement of holding investigation on the count that the petroleum product was seized adulterated. 10. Learned District Judge instead of examining the matter as per the agreement ignored the requirement of holding investigation on the count that the petroleum product was seized adulterated. 10. I am of considered opinion, for the reasons mentioned above, that relevant factor to examine the application under Sec. 9 of the Act of 1996 was with regard to adherence of the provisions of the agreement and not otherwise. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal deserves acceptance and, therefore, the same is allowed. The order impugned dt. 06.08.2007 passed by learned District Judge, Udaipur is quashed and the matter is remanded for its fresh adjudication in light of whatever said above. 12. The parties are in agreement to appear before learned District Judge, Udaipur on 05.02.2008 for further proceeding in the matter. Learned District Judge, Udaipur is directed to decide the application afresh on or before 20.02.2008. 13. The office of this Court is directed to remit record of the trial Court forthwith. * * * * *