The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of a dealership agreement can be lawful if the party has contravened the terms of the agreement. Additionally, relief not specifically prayed for by the parties cannot be granted.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for seeking setting aside of the impugned Arbitral Award dated 11th March, 2015. Along with the objections, the petitioner also filed two applications; one being I.A. No. 19179/2015 under Section 151 CPC for stay and another being I.A. No. 19180/2015 under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 46 days in refiling the petition.

2. Both the parties have made their submissions on merit.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 18th November, 1982 a dealership agreement (hereinafter referred to as “Agreement”) was executed between late Sh. Guman Singh who was the original allottee and proprietor of M/s Captain Guman Singh and Sons and the respondent, pursuant to which the petitioner firm was appointed as the respondent's authorized dealer at Pali, Rajasthan for the retail sales/supply of kerosene for domestic purposes and light diesel oil.

4. In the year 2004, the proprietor of M/s. Guman Singh and Sons, Sh. Guman Singh expired. In January, 2012 while investigating, certain alleged malpractices were found to be committed by the legal representatives of Guman Singh, one of whom is the petitioner herein, with regard to illegal sale of Blue Kerosene to Granite Industries in Jalore District, Rajasthan. As per the case of the respondent, it was discovered that after the death of Sh. Guman Singh, the dealership was operated benami without any prior approval or notice of reconstitution being served on the respondent, which was in gross violation of the terms of the Agreement.

5. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 10th January, 2012 was served on the petitioner directing him to address the aforementioned violations of the Agreement. The reply dated 13th February, 2012 of the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory and the dealership in the name of M/s. Guman Singh and Sons was terminated by letter dated 28th May, 2012.

6. Aggrieved by the said termination of the dealership, the petitioner referred the dispute to arbitration through sole Arbitrator, Sh. Premananda Jena (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"). Having heard both the parties, the Tribunal by award dated 11th March, 2015 dismissed the claim filed by the petitioner and upheld the termination of the Agreement.

7. The Tribunal observed that the dealership was managed by the legal heirs of late Sh. Mr. Guman Singh without reconstituting the firm or/and without receiving prior approval from the respondent. The respondent had therefore rightfully terminated the Agreement as the said conduct was in gross violation of Clauses 13 and 16 of the Agreement.

8. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside the award.

9. The contention of the petitioner is that the dealership be reinstated to the petitioner which was rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal. After termination, the petitioner is not getting the supply from the respondent.

10. The Tribunal had found that the Agreement is determinable in nature in terms of Clause 21, which entitles either party to terminate the Agreement by giving 30 days' notice in writing and without assigning any reason. Additionally, the Tribunal had held the termination to be lawful in view of the petitioner having contravened the terms of the Agreement.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that under the dealership agreement it was the option of the respondent to authorize the petitioner, now coming through legal representatives of the deceased proprietor Sh. Guman Singh in the year 2004, to continue with the dealership. It is also stated that on investigation certain malpractices were found which are mentioned in the award of the Arbitral Tribunal. He submits that even otherwise, in view of the option, which lies with the respondent, the contract was validly terminated by it on 28th May, 2