Judgment By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘Arbitration Act, 1996’) the petitioner seeks to challenge the award dated 30th March, 2009 made by the learned arbitrator rejecting all the claims made by the petitioner. 2. In the year 1986, dealership was commissioned under physically handicapped category by the respondents in favour of one Mr. Dashrath Fajge as the sole proprietor. Subsequently Mr. Abdul Gani was inducted with the said Mr. Dashrath Fajge and fresh dealership agreement dated 20th April, 1992 was executed. 3. On 9th May, 2003, the District Administration/Police raided outlet premises of the petitioner and found that the tanker bearing No. MH26-7600 was uploading unidentified product into MS tank. The vehicle was seized by the police authorities. The retail outlet was sealed after taking samples. Under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, case was filed against the petitioner. The sales and supplies to the retail outlet of the petitioner was suspended. The 1st respondent thereafter issued a notice dated 14th May, 2003 to the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them. The petitioner vide their letter dated 26th May 2003 admitted that their manager Mr. Reddy had conspired with unauthorized persons and arranged to put solvent in the motor spirit. The 1st respondent was not satisfied with the reply tendered by the petitioner. By letter dated 7th June, 2003 the retail outlet of the petitioner was closed for a period of 30 days and penalty of Rs.20,000/- was imposed for such offence upon the petitioner. The petitioner paid the said penalty on 16th May, 2003. As the petitioner did not obtain any permission to resume the retail outlet from the Collector Nanded, the operation remained suspended till 7th September, 2003. 4. On 7th September, 2003, the sales at the outlet of the petitioner recommenced. Since the case under the Essential Commodities Act, against the petitioner was in progress, the District Authorities issued notice to respondents to close the retail outlet. The sales at the outlet of the petitioner therefore had to be suspended on 22nd November, 2003 where after the supplies to the retail outlet were never resumed admittedly. 5. The petitioner thereafter approached the State Government, Ministry of Food, Civil Supply and requested for resumption of supply to the retail outlet. The sales at the outlet of the petitioner therefore had to be suspended on 22nd November, 2003 where after the supplies to the retail outlet were never resumed admittedly. 5. The petitioner thereafter approached the State Government, Ministry of Food, Civil Supply and requested for resumption of supply to the retail outlet. The State Government passed an order dated 14th June, 2004 for resumption of supply. 6. On 23rd June, 2004, the respondent received a letter from one Mrs. Bharti Pawar and Mr. Sachin Pawar claiming that they were partners in the dealership with the petitioner and produced copy of the partnership deed alongwith the extract from the Registrar of Partnership Firm. It is the case of the respondent that the said partnership was without prior consent obtained by the petitioner from the respondent and such act was in breach of the dealership agreement. The respondents thereafter issued show cause notice on 1st July, 2004 to the petitioner as to why action should not be taken. The petitioner vide their reply dated 15th July, 2004 denied of having entered into partnership agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Pawar. 7. It came to the notice of the respondents that Mr. Dashrath Fajge, the original allottee of the petrol pump was in employment with Nanded Municipal Corporation with effect from 16th November 1998 which was also without consent of the respondents and amounted to violation of the terms and conditions of the dealership agreement. The respondents accordingly issued show cause notice on 14th January, 2005 as to why action including termination should not be taken against the petitioner. The respondents did not find reply dated 25th January, 2005 submitted by the petitioner as satisfactory and therefore by letter dated 24th February, 2005 terminated the dealership of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter invoked arbitration clause. The learned arbitrator was appointed in terms of the arbitration clause. None of the parties lead any oral evidence before the learned arbitrator. The learned arbitrator by the impugned award has upheld the termination of agency by the respondents and rejected the claims made by the petitioner for damages and also claims for recovery of various amounts. 8. Mr. Bhandari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the termination effected by the 1st respondent was totally illegal and without any evidence on record of the petitioner. 8. Mr. Bhandari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the termination effected by the 1st respondent was totally illegal and without any evidence on record of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the learned arbitrator relied upon the documents which were not proved. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was entitled to the declaration that the dealership was illegally terminated and the petitioner's agency ought to have restored with damages as claimed. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent on the other hand supported the findings rendered by the learned arbitrator upholding the termination as valid and rejecting the claims for the damages. 10. Perusal of the award indicates that the learned arbitrator has rendered a finding that the petitioner did not produce any document to show that the respondents had granted any permission to Mr. Dashrath Fajge to continue his employment. The learned arbitrator held that the petitioner had violated clause No. 46 of the dealership agreement which requires the petitioner to take active part in management and running of the retail outlet and to personally supervise the same. The learned counsel placed reliance upon Clause 47(2) of the dealership agreement which debars the partners having dealership from taking up any other employment. In so far as the issue of illegal partnership is concerned, the learned arbitrator has rendered a finding based on the partnership deed alongwith the extract of the Registrar of Partnership produced by the respondents on record that such partnership was not recognized by the respondents and was contrary to the terms of the contract. The learned arbitrator also placed reliance upon the application for bail filed by Mr. and Mrs. Pawar before the Sessions Judge which revealed that Mr. Sachin Pawar had admitted to have created one deed titled as partnership deed. Based on these documentary evidence, the learned arbitrator rendered a finding of fact that the petitioner had violated terms and conditions of the dealership agreement and thus termination of agency by the 1st respondent was legal and valid. 11. Sachin Pawar had admitted to have created one deed titled as partnership deed. Based on these documentary evidence, the learned arbitrator rendered a finding of fact that the petitioner had violated terms and conditions of the dealership agreement and thus termination of agency by the 1st respondent was legal and valid. 11. As far as relief for specific performance sought by the petitioner is concerned, the learned arbitrator placed reliance upon section 14(i) (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Amritsar Gas Service and others reported in 1991 SCC 533 and also judgment reported in (2000) 7 SCC 764 and held that if the contract by this nature is detriminable, no specific relief can be granted in terms of section 14(i) (c) of the Specific Relief Act. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent was empowered to terminate the agency agreement in case of any breach committed by the agent. In my view under section 14(i) (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 , in view of the fact that the contract provided for determination in case of breach, no specific performance in the nature of restoration of agency could be granted by the learned arbitrator. I am bound by the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments reported in 1991 SCC 533 and also judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2000) 7 SCC 764 . 12. In so far as claim for damages arising out of termination is concerned, the award indicates that the learned arbitrator has rejected those claims firstly on the ground that the agency was rightly terminated by the 1st respondent and therefore the question of awarding any damages did not arise. Those claims are also rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not prove it by any documentary evidence. 13. In my view, in view of the arbitrator having rendered a finding that the agency was lawfully terminated by the 1st respondent, question of awarding any claim for damages did not arise. Even otherwise the claim for damages are required to be proved. No claim for damages/compensation can be awarded by the arbitrator unless entitlement to claim such damages and quantification thereof is proved before the learned arbitrator. Even otherwise the claim for damages are required to be proved. No claim for damages/compensation can be awarded by the arbitrator unless entitlement to claim such damages and quantification thereof is proved before the learned arbitrator. In my view, the petitioner failed to prove that the termination of the agency was illegal and also failed to prove the loss and/or damages alleged to have been suffered by the petitioner. No fault thus can be found with the findings rendered by the learned arbitrator. 14. Mr. Bhandari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as far as claim 2 which is in the sum of Rs.32 lacs which is arising out of loss of profit alleged to have been suffered by the petitioner in view of the suspension of agency by the 1st respondent is concerned, the petitioner was not at all responsible. It is submitted that the agency was subsequently restored on payment of penalty by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the agency having been restored by the respondents pursuant to the order passed by the state government, it presupposes that the petitioner was not responsible for suspension of the agency and thus loss suffered by the petitioner, was required to be considered and awarded by the learned arbitrator. 15. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent on the other hand submits that the petitioner did not make any such submissions before the learned arbitrator that loss of profit shall be considered because of resumption of agency by virtue of the order passed by the state government. 16. Perusal of the award on this issue indicates that the learned arbitrator has rendered a finding of fact that the petitioner themselves was responsible for engaging in adulteration and other malpractices at the retail outlet which laid to the suspension of the supplies at the retail outlet. 17. In my view, the said finding is rendered by the learned arbitrator based on the documentary evidence laid by both parties before the learned arbitrator which finding in my view is not perverse and thus no interferences is warranted with such findings rendered by the learned arbitrator. I am thus not inclined to accept the submissions made by Mr. 17. In my view, the said finding is rendered by the learned arbitrator based on the documentary evidence laid by both parties before the learned arbitrator which finding in my view is not perverse and thus no interferences is warranted with such findings rendered by the learned arbitrator. I am thus not inclined to accept the submissions made by Mr. Bhandari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in view of the restoration of the agency subsequently, the petitioner deserves to be granted claim for loss of profit . 18. The last issue raised by Mr. Bhandari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner had made claim of Rs.59,64,654/- as recoverable towards reconciliation of account for the period 1993-94 to 2002-03 which was one of the claim made by the petitioner before the learned arbitrator. The learned counsel submits that this claim was independent claim and was no way co-related with the claim for compensation based on termination of agency. The learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had produced the requisite documents in support of the said claim and also have submitted Parties Account Details and PAD statements and though the petitioner had co-related the documents in support of the said claim, the learned arbitrator has rejected the said claim by rendering the erroneous finding that the petitioner could not explain as to how the statement filed by the petitioner in tabular form was to be co-related/reconciled with the PAD statement. The learned counsel submits that this part of the finding of the learned arbitrator shows total non application of mind on the part of the learned arbitrator in rejecting the said claim. It is submitted that the learned arbitrator has not considered the documentary evidence laid by the petitioner before the learned arbitrator. 19. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent on the other hand submits that though enough opportunity was given by the learned arbitrator to the petitioner to co-relate entries in the statement of account with Parties Account Details, petitioner did not avail of any such opportunities and failed to co-related such entries before the learned arbitrator for which the petitioner is solely responsible. 20. Perusal of the finding rendered by the learned arbitrator on this issue indicates that there was some communication gap on this issue whether explanation rendered by the petitioner was sufficient or not. 20. Perusal of the finding rendered by the learned arbitrator on this issue indicates that there was some communication gap on this issue whether explanation rendered by the petitioner was sufficient or not. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had produced Parties Account Details as well as various other documents. The award indicates that the respondent had not pointed out from the documents produced by the petitioner that same were forged or the contents were fabricated. In my view it would be appropriate in this circumstances to remand the matter back to the learned arbitrator to decide the claim of Rs.56,64,654/- with interest afresh. 21. It is made clear that the learned arbitrator shall decide this claim afresh without being influenced by the findings rendered by the learned arbitrator in the impugned award. 22. Both parties are permitted to lead documentary as well as oral evidence if they so desire before the learned arbitrator. 23. The respondents are directed to appoint arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause provided within one week from today and communicate the name to the petitioner. 24. The learned arbitrator is requested to dispose of the matter expeditiously and not later than six months from today. 25. Petition is disposed of accordingly. 26. No order as to costs.