Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 902 (KAR)

Shodhan v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

2013-08-08

A.S.BOPANNA

body2013
ORDER A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the show-cause notice dated 28-6-2013. However during the pendency, since it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that an order dated 25-7-2013 has been passed pursuant to the said notice, the said order has also been called in question. The petitioner who had been appointed as a transporter under the agreement dated 21-11-2012 is aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Corporation. 2. The respondent-Corporation on entering caveat have filed the objection statement referring to the arbitration clause contained in the agreement which had been entered into between the petitioner and the respondents. On referring to the same, learned Counsel for the' respondents has also relied on the order dated 10-4-2013 passed in W.P. No. 10721 of 2013 wherein a learned Judge of this Court while taking note of a similar agreement relating to the respondent-Corporation was of the view that alternate remedy of arbitration should be availed and a writ petition would not be maintainable. In that view, I am of the opinion that in the instant case also the petitioner should be relegated to his remedy of arbitration. 3. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that even if Clause 16 contained in the agreement is perused, it would Arbitrators would be at Patna when the petitioner is a resident and is carrying on business at Mangalore. The jurisdiction of the Court would no doubt be bound by law but the place of sitting of Arbitrator can be agreed between the parties. Though it has been indicated that sitting of the Arbitrator would be at Patna, it does not stand to reason when the parties are not from that place nor does the contract relate to the place. To that extent, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should be granted the liberty of making an application while seeking for reference to the Arbitrator that the sitting be held either at Bangalore or Mangalore at the convenience of the petitioner. If such request is made, respondent-Corporation shall consider the same and hold such sitting as it would be for benefit of both the parties. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since an order of blacklisting has been made and if no interim directions are available, the petitioner would be severely prejudiced. If such request is made, respondent-Corporation shall consider the same and hold such sitting as it would be for benefit of both the parties. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since an order of blacklisting has been made and if no interim directions are available, the petitioner would be severely prejudiced. In that regard, it is needless to mention that on the petitioner raising a dispute and invoking the arbitration clause or when there is a proposed arbitration to be taken up, it would always be open for the petitioner to file an appropriate application for interim measure as contemplated under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. If such application is filed before the Court below, the Court below will take up such application for consideration as expeditiously as possible. With liberty to the petitioner in that regard, the petition stands disposed of.