Gujarat High Court
Jay Ambe Transport vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 21 July, 2015
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel, Rajesh H.Shukla
C/SCA/8354/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8354 of 2015
==========================================================
JAY AMBE TRANSPORT....Petitioner(s)
Versus
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED. & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MEGHA JANI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MINOO A SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date : 21/07/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
1. The petitioner, by this petition, is seeking appropriate writ to quash and set aside the order dated 16.2.2015 passed by respondent No.2 for black- listing the tanker truck as mentioned in the order.
2. We have heard Ms.Megha Jani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Minoo Shah, learned Counsel for the respondents.
3. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, it appears that it is an undisputed position that the impugned termination order was Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/8354/2015 ORDER passed on 16.2.2015. Thereafter, on 18.3.2015, arbitration was invoked by the petitioner. Further, the Arbitrator has already been appointed and he has entered the office by issuing notice to both the parties on 28.4.2015. The another aspect is that when the petitioner invoked the arbitration, both questions are agitated namely that the dispute is raised against the termination as well as for black- listing of the tanker truck.
4. In our view, when the Arbitrator is seized with the matter and when the proceedings under arbitration is invoked and are pending before the Arbitrator, it could not be a case for interference in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. However, Ms.Jani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the interim relief be continued for some time, so as to enable the petitioner to move appropriate application, including the amendment of the statement of claim before the Arbitrator/Court.
6. Whereas, Ms.Minoo Shah, learned Counsel for the respondents, submitted that there are incidental aspects, which may also be required to be agitated by the respondents before the Arbitrator/Court. Ms. Shah also contended that when the petition is not maintainable, this Court may not extend the interim Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/8354/2015 ORDER relief.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances, we find that when the Arbitrator is seized with the proceedings, we need not express any view, because such view may prejudice the rights of either side in the proceedings before the Arbitrator. Further, for the interim relief, the petitioner can approach before the Arbitrator/Court and the respondents may resist such interim relief before the Arbitrator/Court and the Arbitrator/Court may decide in accordance with law.
8. Hence, the present petition is not entertained. However, it is observed that the interim relief granted earlier so far as it relates to black- listing is concerned, the same shall continue for a period of two weeks from today. It is observed that the Arbitrator shall be at liberty to decide the matter independently, without being, in any manner, influenced by the present order or interim protection granted or continued by this Court.
9. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) (RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/8354/2015 ORDER vinod Page 4 of 4