IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH and A.No.117 of 2022

1.Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Executive Director, Marketing Division, Southern Region, Tamil Nadu State Office, Indian Oil Bhavan, No.139, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600034.

2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Deputy General Manager Marketing Division, Salem Divisional Office, No.234, First Floor, NH-7, Salem Bangalore Bypass Road, Kondalampatti, Salem 636010.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. M/s. Captain Palanisamy Service Station, A Registered Partnership Firm, Rep. by Mr.S.Kuppannan, Managing Partner, No.323, Omalur Main Road, Salem 636007.

2.K.P.Manoharan ..Respondent(s)

PRAYER Petition filed under Section 34(2)(B)(ii) Explanation 1(ii) and (iii) and 2(A) and (B)(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended in 2019, to set aside the Arbitration Award dated 20.03.2020 passed by the Learned Arbitrator which had arisen out of the dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent, besides directing the Respondent to pay the costs of the Petition.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Vijayamehanath For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Senthil

ORDER

This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as ' the Act') challenging the Award passed by the Sole Arbitrator dated 20.03.2020.

2.The 1^st respondent is a Partnership Firm which had four partners viz., Kuppannan, Palanisamy, Amaravathy and Manoharan. This partnership was reconstituted through a Deed dated 12.01.1999. Pursuant to the reconstitution of the of the Partnership Firm, a Dealership Agreement was executed by the petitioner Corporation on 12.01.1999 and the change in the Partnership Firm was approved by the Corporation vide letter dated 22.01.1999.

3.On 07.07.2017, one of the partner viz., Manoharan who is the 2^nd respondent in this petition, gave a complaint to the petitioner Corporation and made a claim for allotment in his favour, since he has the major share in the retail outlet. The petitioner Corporation called for the relevant documents and found that one of the partner, Palanisamy had executed an Agreement on 05.05.2003, in favour of the 2^nd respondent for sale of his share of 34% in the Firm. A general Power of Attorney dated 05.05.2003, was executed by the said Palanisamy and the Power of Attorney was appointed to take care of day-to-day activities of the dealership on his behalf. A Business Trading Agreement was also executed by Palanisamy by conveying his investment and interest in the dealership in favour of the 2^nd respondent. Ultimately, a Sale Deed dated 01.08.2013 was executed by the Power of Attorney of Palanisamy in favour of one Selvam conveying his share.

4.The petitioner Corporation, on going through the above documents found that there is a violation of terms and conditions of the Dealership Agreement and hence, a Show Cause Notice dated 09.10.2017 was issued to the partnership Firm calling for an explanation. An explanation was submitted by the managing partner Kuppannan and another partner Amaravathy. The said Palanisamy also submitted an explanation stating that he has not sold any shares in the dealership.

5.The petitioner Corporation ultimately terminated the Dealership Agreement by order dated 03.09.2018 and the 1^st respondent was directed to handover the retail outlet.

6.Initially a writ petition was filed and this Court directed the parties to agitate the dispute before the Arbitral Tribunal. Accordingly, the petition was filed before this Court in O.P.No.336 of 2019 and an order was passed on

31.07.2019 appointing a Sole Arbitrator.

7.The 1^st respondent initiated arbitral proceedings and filed the claim statement before the Sole Arbitrator challenging the termination order and for a direction to the Corporation to restore the Dealership Agreement dated

12.01.1999.

8.The petitioner Corporation filed a detailed reply and explai