S.N Sridharan v. M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.01.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL S.N.Sridharan M/s.Ajitha Gas Agency (Now a partner) No.21, Dr.Ambedkar Salai, North Thirumalai Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai - 600 049.

... Appellant VS.

1.M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Rep. By its Executive Director Tamil Nadu State Office Indian Oil Bhavan No.139, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034.

2.M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Rep. By its Chief Area Manager Chennai Area Office No.500, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 018.

... Respondents 1/5

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Section 37(1)(B) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 31.08.2021 on the file of this Court made in O.P.No.299 of 2020.

For Appellant :

Mr.Gautam S. Raman For Respondents :

Mr.V.Anantha Natarajan

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) This appeal is under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2.The only grievance of the appellant is that the Section 34 Court while setting aside the Award for damages on the ground that there was no prayer for damages, had gone into the merits of the matter and had opined that the findings of the Arbitrator regarding the termination of the agreement are also incorrect. The dispute was one based on termination of a Dealership Agreement between the appellant and the respondent Corporation. The Arbitrator had found that the termination of the 2/5

Dealership agreement was vitiated by malafide and whimsical action on the part of the Corporation. As a sequitur to the said findings, the Arbitrator went again to award damages. This Award was principally set aside by the Section 34 Court on the ground that it is in excess of the powers of the Arbitrator. However, while examining the correctness of the Award, the Hon'ble Judge re-appraised the evidence and arrived at a conclusion that the termination is proper.

3.We do not think such an exercise is permitted under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, now that the Award has been set aside on a valid ground, we do not propose to interfere in the appeal except to observe that if the appellant seeks re-arbitration, the observations made in the order of the Section 34 Court or in the Award of the Arbitrator, will have any bearing and the new Arbitrator who is to be appointed will examine the issue without being influenced by any of the observations contained in the Award of the Arbitrator or the order of the Section 34.

3/5

4.The Original Side Appeal is dismissed with the above observation. No costs.

[R.S.M., J.] [R.S.V., J.] 12.01.2024 Index : No Internet : Yes : No Speaking Order TK 4/5

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

TK OSA (CAD) NO .98 OF 2022 12.01.2024 5/5