1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

MFA No.102894/2017 (AA)

Between

M/s.Daleel Brothers

By its Proprietor

Sri Rafeekahmed

s/o Husainsaheb Daleel

Age 44 years, Occ: Business

r/o Mulagund, Tq/Dist:Gadag.

...Appellant

(By Sri Shriharsh A Neelopant, Sri Arun L Neelopant, Advocates)

A n d

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Limited, represented by its Chief

Regional Manager and Duly

Constituted Attorney, Regional

Office: HPCL Complex, Sambhaji

Road, Rani Channamma Nagar

Belgaum, Dist: Belgaum.

... Respondent

(By Sri Ramesh B Kale, Advocate)

This MFA is filed under Section 37(1) of Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 against the judgment dated 3.8.2017

passed in Arbitration No.28/2015 on the file of the Principal

District Judge, Belagavi, dismissing the application filed

2

under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996.

This miscellaneous first appeal having been heard and

reserved for orders on 21.12.2020, and coming on for

pronouncement this day, through video conference, the Court

made the following:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 3.8.2017

passed by the

Principal

District

Judge,

Belgaum

in

Arbitration Suit No.28/2015 and also the award dated

30.7.2015 passed by the Sole Arbitrator rejecting the claim of

the appellant.

2.

The appellant was issued with letter of intent on

1.6.2007 by the respondent appointing the appellant as

Dealer of Retailer Outlet at Mulugund village, Gadag Taluk.

Thereafter, the appellant got his land converted for

commercial purposes as per the Clause contained in the

award of the dealership. The appellant executed a registered

release deed dated 7.6.2007 in favour of the respondent

/Corporation to an extent of 2073 sq. metres of his converted

3

land on lease for a period of 29 years. Thereafter, the

respondent has entered into standard dealer ship agreement

with the appellant and in pursuance of which, the appellant

has invested huge amount.

3.

On 9.3.2009, the respondent/Corporation allotted

adhoc dealership in favour of the appellant for operation of

retail outlet dealership on temporary basis.

4.

On 10.8.2010, the respondent/Corporation issued

a notice to the appellant asking the appellant as to why he is

not achieved the minimum sale target of the lubricant and

other products at the temporary retail outlet at Laxmeshwar.

5.

On

18.10.2010,

the

respondent/Corporation

issued a caution notice to the appellant as to why the account

in respect of temporary retail outlet at Laxmeshwar is being

operated in the name of Sri C S Hiremath, who is the

terminated dealer. The appellant replied on 19.10.2010 to

the show cause notice stating that he was not aware that

4

Sri C S Hiremath is the terminated dealer and the account is

operated in the name of M/s.Daleel Brothers and also

requested to permit him to resign from operating the

temporary dealership.

6.

On

25.11.2010,

the

respondent/Corporation

issued a notice to the appellant terminating the temporary

dealership of the appellant in respect of the retail outlet at

Laxmeshwar. It is submitted that the termination of

temporary dealership was not challenged since the appellant

was not willing to continue the same. The appellant handed

over the possession of the temporary retail outlet to the

respondent/Corporation on 15.12.2010.

7.

The appellant submits that after lapse of more

than two years, the respondent/Corporation issued a notice

dated 2.4.2012 as to why the standard dealership agreement

with respect to Mulagund Petrol Pump should not be

terminated on the ground that the invoices prepared in the

name of M/s.Daleel Brothers with respect to temporary retail

5

outlet was found having signature of Sri C S Hiremath. The

app