M/S CHHATTISGARH FUELS vs INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED

1

CGHC010335162026 2026:CGHC:38571
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ARBR No. 54 of 2026
M/s Chhattisgarh Fuels Through Proprietor V. Venu Through Power of Attorney
Holder Vinay Kumar Singh S/o Radheyshyam Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
House No.70/E, Ward No.21, Camp 1, Supela Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through The Regional Manager Indian Oil
Digitally
signed by
PREETI
KUMARI
Date:
2026.09.01
16:30:28
+0530
PREETI
KUMARI
Corporation Limited, Indian Oil Bhawan, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate.

Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
01.09.2026
1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator.
2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the applicant and
respondent had entered into an agreement dated 01.11.2008 for dealership
of IOCL (Indian Oil Corporation Limited) retail outlet in the name and style of
M/s Chhattisgarh fuels ( SAP CODE 170763 ) transport Nagar Hathkoj Bhilai
District Durg Since 01.11.2008 and Vinay Kumar Singh is Power of Attorney
to send respondent notice on behalf of proprietor V. Venu Chhattisgarh fuels
Bhilai. Disputes and differences have arisen between applicant and
respondent in respect of dealership agreement and therefore issued a notice

2
to applicant alleging that he has executed partnership deed with Narendra
Kumar Nishad and Smt. B.S. Raj Bala which is in violation of condition of
agreement applicant replied the notice and denied the allegations leveled
against him, after inquiry the respondent terminated the dealership of
applicant vide termination order No. RPDO/R/170763/TL/01 dated
07.07.2025. The applicant has filed a representation against the termination
order dated 07.07.2025 before the senior regional manager Indian Oil
Corporation Raipur. The representation of applicant is still pending since its
filing date 24.07.2025. Applicant has number of times visited the office of
respondent and requested them to decide his representation but the
respondent are not considering applicant representation. Despite repeated
requests and communications, respondent have failed and neglected to
resolve the said disputes, leaving applicant with no alternative but to invoke
the arbitration clause contained in the agreement. It is specifically denied that
applicant has committed any breach or violation of the terms and conditions
of the agreement. On the contrary, applicant has always acted in good faith
and strictly in accordance with contractual obligations. Without prejudice to
the above, even assuming (though not admitted) that any minor deviation
occurred, the same does not constitute a fundamental breach warranting
termination of the dealership agreement. The alleged defaults, if any, are
curable in nature and could have been addressed through reasonable
opportunity and mutual discussion. The respondent action of terminating the
agreement is arbitrary, disproportionate, and contrary to the principles of
natural justice and fair dealing, and is therefore illegal and unsustainable in
law.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has suffered
serious financial losses, reputational damage, and business disruption due to
respondent unlawful termination. Earlier, the applicant has preferred

3
WPC/482/2026 before this Court regarding to decide the representation
made by applicant before respondent authority and when the matter is
represented by counsel for the IOCL submits that the applicant has preferred
representation before Regional Manager Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Raipur and the said authority is lower in hierarchy to the authority which
terminated the agreement i.e. Chief General Manager & State Head Madhya
Pradesh State Office. He further submits that although there is no provision
for appeal/representation in the agreement but there is arbitration clause and
petitioner ought to have availed that remedy. The applicant company also
sent Legal Notice for appointment of arbitrator dated 14.04.2026 issued
under Section 21 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment
of sole arbitrator along with Tracking Report of the Notice for invoking
arbitration clause 61(a) contained in the Agreement dated 01.11.2008.
stipulates that 'any dispute or difference of any nature whatsoever, any claim,
cross-claim, counter-claim or set-off or regarding any right, liability, act,
omission or account of any of the parties hereto arising out of or in relation to
this agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Director
(Marketing) of the Corporation who may either himself act as the Arbitrator or
nominate some other officer of the Corporation to act as the Arbitrator". Even
after expiry of statutory time period of thirty days from the date of service of
Notice dated 14.04.2026 invoking arbitration, the respondent have not
nominated any Arbitrator as provided in the Dealership Agreement
containing the Arbitration clause. Therefore, due to the failure on behalf of
the respondent to respond to the applicant for nomination of the sole
Arbitrator, the applicant is constrained to invoke the provisions of Section 11
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (read with Arbitration
Amendment Act, 2015) and request this Hon'ble Court to appoint any
suitable and qualified person as the Arbitrator on behalf of both the applicant

4
and respondent under the provisions of Section 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act and in accordance with clause "61(a)" of the Dealership
Agreement to adjudicate upon the dispute and differences between the
parties as stated above. The applicant states that the applicant has not filed
in this Hon'ble Court or any other Court in India or the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India any other application in respect of the subject matter of this
application. The applicant submits that no part of the claim is barred by the
law of limitation. The Arbitral proceedings commenced by the notice dated
14.04.2026 which was successfully received by the respondents on
17.04.2026 and 20.04.2026. Hence, no part of the claim is barred by the law
of limitation.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the present arbitration request
application, however he submits that the respondent shall have no objection
if this Court appoints any Arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the
parties.
5. Heard on IA No. 01 of 2026, which is an application for exemption from filing
the typed copy and IA No. 02/2026, which is an application for exemption
from filing original copy of dealership agreement.
6. For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the
pleadings and documents appended thereto.
8. A query was put to learned counsel appearing for the parties as to whether
they are agreeable for a common name who can be appointed as Arbitrator,
learned counsel for the parties submitted that they would have no objection if
any retired Judge of this High Court is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. They
further submit that Hon'ble Mr. Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, who is a
retired Judge of this High Court may be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator.
9. In view of the above consensus between the learned counsel for the parties,

5
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Radhakishan Agrawal , a retired Judge of this High
Court is appointed to act as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute involved
in this arbitration request between the parties.
10. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Radhakishan Agrawal in the proper address.
11. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of
the parties.
12. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed .
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Preeti