Parties must adhere to agreed arbitration procedures; failure to do so precludes judicial appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel and Mr. SS Roy, learned CGC for the respondent.

2. The petitioner before this Court was awarded dealership of Dispensing Pump and Selling License by respondent company by execution of proper agreement dated 28.03.2023. By the said agreement, the petitioner had been running a petrol pump at Tingrai Gaon, Tinsukia since the year 2008. On the basis of a dealership granted to the petitioner by Numaligarh Refinery Limited (hereinafter referred to as “NRL”), the NRL was taken over by BPCL in the year 2012 whereupon a fresh agreement was entered by and between the petitioner and BPCL for running the patrol pump. In the year 2023, there was some persistent malfunctioning in the dispensing unit of the petitioner’s petrol pump. This dispensing unit was installed and maintained by M/S Gilbarco Vedder Root (GVR) which was 3^rd Party vendor appointed by the BPCL and who supplied the dispensing unit for the petrol pump. The internal parts of the dispensing units were sent to GVR for testing wherein it was found that the dispensing unit had been manipulated and tampered with.

3. It is the petitioner's case that the Legal Metrology Department, Government of Assam had inspected the dispensing unit as a whole and issued a certificate ruling out any irregularity or tampering in a dispensing unit. However, a show-cause notice dated 22.01.2024 was issued to the BPCL asking them to show cause as to why the dealership agreement should not be cancelled. The petitioner although replied to the show-cause notice, however, subsequently approached the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Commercial Court, Kamrup (Metro) under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for an interim protection restraining the BPCL, namely, the respondent from terminating the dealership agreement. The Commercial Court by order dated 03.07.2024 granted an interim injunction to the petitioner restraining the BPCL from taking any coercive action. The agreement executed by and between the petitioner and the respondent contained a clause being Clause- 19 which provided for settling any disputes and differences arising between the parties by appointment of an arbitrator. The petitioner therefore issued a notice dated 15.07.2024 calling upon the respondents to appoint an Arbitrator. However, the respondent did not reply to the notice issued. Meanwhile, since the respondent did not appear before the Commercial Court on subsequent dates, the interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court was made absolute by order dated 07.09.2024. The respondent authority thereafter filed an appeal before the Appellate Court of the Commercial Courts Division, namely, the Court of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup (Metro) whereupon the appellate Court stayed the order passed by the Commercial Court dated 07.09.2024 by order dated 05.12.2024 on the ground that the order was obtained without presenting the correct and true facts and circumstances of the case. Being aggrieved, another second appeal was filed before the Commercial Appellate Division Gauhati High Court being Comm. App. Div. 1/2025. The Division Bench of this Court from the question of maintainability of the second appeal, dismissed the same on the grounds and reasons mentioned in