M/S Vashisht Oil Carrier v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd

Delhi High Court · 08 Apr 2015 · 2015:DHC:3175
J. R. Midha
FAO 99/2015
2015:DHC:3175
civil appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the refusal of interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, holding that a party blacklisted and terminated for contractual breaches cannot continue operations or participate in tenders.

Full Text
Translation output
FAO 99/2015
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO 99/2015
Date of Decision: 8th April, 2015 M/S VASHISHT OIL CARRIER ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Vireshwar Tyagi, Adv.
VERSUS
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD & ANR... Respondents
Through Mr. Saran Suri, Mr. Gunjan Kumar, Mr. A. Khurana, Advs. along with Mr. Sanjay P. Khare, officer of IOCL.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
CMs6264-6265/2015 Allowed subject to just exceptions.

1. The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 9th March, 2015 whereupon the learned Trial Court has dismissed the appellant’s application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. The appellant was given a contract for operating six tank trucks for transporting the MS(Petrol) and HSD(Diesel) of the respondent which was valid upto 9th April, 2015.

3. Vide order dated 8th December, 2014, the respondent 2015:DHC:3175 terminated the said contract and black listed the appellant for a period of two years w.e.f. 8th December, 2014 on the ground of tampering with security locks, pilferage, adulteration and maligning the reputation of the company under Clause ITDG 8.1.

4. On 7th January, 2015, the appellant invoked the arbitration clause and called upon the respondent to appoint an arbitrator. In the meantime, the appellant moved an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act for permission to operate the remaining tanker trucks and to participate in the forthcoming tenders/bids.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under the agreement, only one truck tanker involved in the pilferage or adulteration can be blacklisted and the appellant has right to operate the remaining truck tankers. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant be permitted to participate in the forthcoming tenders of the respondents.

6. There is no merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. Since the appellant’s contract has been terminated by the respondent and he has been blacklisted, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit the appellant to operate the truck tankers or to participate in the forthcoming tenders. There is no infirmity in the dismissal of the appellant’s application by the learned Trial Court. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. J.R. MIDHA, J APRIL 8, 2015