DILIP GUPTA,J. - (1.) THIS petition seeks the quashing of the arbitration proceedings before the Sole Arbitrator, Sri S.H. Riaz, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. between M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') and M/s. Manas Petro Yard, Gorakhpur including the quashing of the minutes of the proceedings held on 13th December, 2010 before the Arbitrator.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Dealer for the retail sale/supply of Petrol/HSD Motor Oil Grease and other Petroleum Products on the terms and conditions set out in the Memorandum of Agreement made on 11th March, 2005 between the Corporation and Smt. Nandita Agrawal proprietor of M/s Manas Petro Yard, Gorakhpur. It is the case of the petitioner that since the officers of the Corporation caused hindrance in the business, the petitioner sent a letter dated 4th July, 2009 to the Corporation for surrendering the Dealership and in continuation of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner sent another letter dated 10th July, 2009 for removal of the fitments and accessories of the Corporation installed in the premises. The petitioner also claims to have given a notice dated 31st December, 2009 to the landlord for termination of the tenancy of the land leased for doing business. The Corporation, however, filed Suit No.154 of 2010 on 16th February, 2010 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gorakhpur against Nandita Agrawal (opposite party first set) and Navin Priya Das and Asthabhuja Das (opposite parties second set) for the relief that the opposite party first set may be directed to assign the petrol pump to the plaintiff-Corporation in terms of Clause 57 of the Agreement. The opposite parties second set had executed the lease deed of the land on which the business was being carried. In the Suit, the petitioner claims to have filed counter claim and the landlord also filed a written statement in April, 2010.
(3.) IN the meantime, by the letter dated 7th October, 2010 the Director, Marketing of the Corporation informed the petitioner that a Sole Arbitrator had been appointed in terms of Clause 69 of the Agreement. The petitioner raised objection to the arbitration proceedings through letter dated 23rd October, 2010 stating that the Corporation had exercised its option of filing Original Suit No.154 of 2010 under Clause 68 of the Agreement and so, assuming without admitting, that there was an arbitration clause, the arbitration proceedings could not have been initiated by the Corporation under Clause 69 of the Agreement. The objection was reiterated by the petitioner in the subsequent letter dated 28th October, 2010. The Arbitrator, however, rejected the objections filed by the petitioner by the order dated 13th December, 2010 holding that pendency of the suit before the Civil Judge cannot be taken as an impediment in continuance of the arbitration proceedings and, accordingly, directed the petitioner to file the statement of defence.;