JUDGMENT :

(Ashutosh Shastri, J.)

1. By way of present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Court Act 2015, a challenge is made to a decision rendered by learned Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad dated 12.8.2022. The relief clause contained in the appeal reads as under:-

(a) Admit this First Appeal:

(b) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to call for the Records and Proceedings of Commercial Civil Misc. Application No. 339 of 2021 from the Court of learned. Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad and after examining the legality and propriety thereof, be pleased to quash and set aide the judgment dated 12.8.2022 rendered by learned Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad and be further pleased to allow Commercial Civil Misc. Application No.339 of 2021 with costs in the interest of justice;

c) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that the Dealership Agreement itself being determinable, the award rendered by the learned Sole Arbitrator dated 21.2.2020 directing restoration of Dealership is per se illegal, null and void and not binding on the appellants;

d) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

2. The background of facts which has given rise to present appeal is that a dealership agreement came to be executed between Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and opponents on 21.3.2013 for retail sale of petrol/ HSD/ motor oil/ Grease and such other petroleum products and pursuant to such dealership agreement, equipments were installed at the retail outlet which were in possession and control of the opponent herein.

3. It is the case of the appellant that on 16.1.2014, Anti- Adulteration Cell (AAC) had visited the site of the opponent and observed that two dispensing units with pulsar cable, additional suspicious electronic chips were attached. Cable and chips were removed and sealed by the officers of AAC and on sealed cover, signature of the opponent was taken. Report came to be prepared by AAC, which was signed by the opponent and no objection was taken at the said relevant point of time. Report has specifically contained the observations that chips were found during surprise checking. On 10.2.2014, a show cause notice came to be issued by the appellant to the opponent and in response thereto, reply was given by the opponents on 28.2.2014. It is the case of the appellant in the reply that a categorical admission reflects about factum of additional suspicious electronic chips. On 7.4.2014, opponent along with Committee members were present at the office of original equipment manufacturer, i.e. MIDCO, for opening sealed envelop. But, the opponent insisted that IOCL should took decision for carrying out scientific test and thereafter only envelop be opened. Since no conclusion could take place in the same meeting, meeting was re-scheduled on 19.5.2014, wherein also, opponent reiterated the request as made earlier. In turn, on 20.5.2014, said two suspicious electronic components were handed over to MIDCO, who in turn, stated that upon inspection of both the electronic components, it was certified that these were not part of MIDCO dispensing unit. In view of such, a show cause notice was issued on 25.8.2014 to the opponent and after considering the reply dated 2.2.2015, an order of termination of dealership agreement came to be passed under the said letter. Opponent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which came to be dismissed by a detailed order dated 30.3.2015.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Appellate Authority, opponent filed Special Civil Application No.6944 of 2015 and pursuant to order dated 26.7.2018, disputes were referred to learned Arbitrator for arbitration. In response to the said order, appellants appeared bef