Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1330
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
M/s. Venkateswaraa Agencies – Appellant
Vs.
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn., Ltd. & Others – Respondent
W.P.No. 33598 of 2013
Decided On : 13-03-2015
For the Petitioner:A.R.L. Sundaresan Sr. Counsel for A.L. Ganthimathi, Advocate. For the Respondents:M. Vijayan for King & Partridge, Advocates.
The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Termination of Dealership Agreement - Clauses 15, 16, 18, 36, 42, 55(A), 55(K) - The court discussed the termination of the dealership agreement and the alleged violations of the clauses mentioned. The court also considered the principles of natural justice and the availability of an alternative remedy through arbitration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, sought to quash the termination of the dealership agreement. The respondent terminated the agreement based on alleged violations and irregularities at the retail outlet.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Writ Petition was not maintainable and dismissed it. The petitioner was directed to invoke the Arbitration clause for further proceedings.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the Writ Petition, violation of principles of natural justice, and the availability of an alternative remedy through arbitration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner did not bring the matter within the contingencies justifying bypassing the remedy of Arbitration available under the contract.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was held to be not maintainable and dismissed. The petitioner was directed to invoke the Arbitration clause for further proceedings.
1. This Writ Petition has been filed by a dealer of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the order, dated 03.12.2013, by which the dealership agreement, dated 25.11.2004, executed in favour of the petitioner was terminated.
2. The petitioner was granted a dealership by the respondent, Hindustan Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “respondent Corporation”). The petitioner is the owner of the site in which the Petrol Pump has been established and she has executed a lease deed in favour of the respondent Corporation in 2004 and the lease is for a period of 30 years. The dealership agreement between the petitioner and the respondent corporation was entered into on 25.11.2004, and the period of dealership is for 15 years. The petitioner's retail outlet is situated in Pondichery. The petitioner would state that they have purchased the dispensing pump from M/s.Larsen & Turbo Ltd, (L&T), as directed by the respondent Corporation and the pumps are regularly serviced by L&T. The petitioner would further state that during 2004, the petitioner brought to the notice of the respondent Corporation that the Pump display and the totalizer reading are not matching. It is stated that the respondent Corporation in turn lodged a complaint to L&T on 24.12.2004, and on the same day, the Service Engineer of L&T inspected the pump and replaced the totalizer and also issued a certificate. It is further submitted that periodically the dispensing pumps are inspected by the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Weights and Measures Department, Puducherry and stamping has been done to ensure dispensing of correct amount of fuel. It is stated that the last of such stamping was done on 12.12.2006. The petitioner is said to have lodged a complaint with the second respondent regarding the malfunctioning of Z-Line Pump and the Service Engineer of L&T is said to have inspected the pump on 09.12.2006 and rectified the mistake and the meter unit was replaced, as it was found defective and a report dated 09.12.2006, was furnished.
3. On 12.12.2006, the officials of the respondent Corporation inspected the retail outlet and made certain observations regarding the type of nuts used in the Totalizer, which according to the petitioner is beyond the purview of the respondent Corporation, since it is maintained by L&T. The second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 29.01.2007, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action as deemed fit, including the termination of the Dealership Agreement cannot be taken as provided for under Clauses 15, 16, 18, 36, 42, 55(A) and 55(K) of the Dealership Agreement. The petitioner was granted seven days time to submit its reply. The show cause notice was based on an inspection, which was conducted by the Manager-Vigilance on 12.12.2006. The petitioner submitted its reply on 14.02.2007, explaining that the Weight and Measures seals were put on 12.12.2006 and it was done immediately after the Z-Line pump was serviced by L&T and the repairs and replacement were made by the Service Engineer, who attended the same on 09.12.2006. Regarding the Hexagonal nuts, the petitioner would state that it was fixed by L&T, during service. Regarding the other allegations that free air pump equipment was not available, it was stated that due to electricity problem, it was not functioning during inspection. As regards the Tank truck retention sample, the petitioner stated that the sample was taken on the previous night at 12.00 pm., and therefore, the same was not kept properly sealed when inspection was done on the next day, at about 8.00 am. After submitting their reply, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.21071 of 2007, to forbear the respondents from in any manner interfering with the running of the retail outlet and an order of interim stay was granted and the petitioner continued to run the retail outlet. Subsequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of by ord
