Summary
The Supreme Court restored dismissal of a dealer’s writ petition challenging Indian Oil’s refusal to revive his dealership. The arbitral award had upheld the established breaches and merely permitted a request for leniency. Reconsideration was a separate, discretionary decision; the reasoned refusal involved no arbitrariness warranting substitution of the High Court’s view.
Issues
- Whether the award required restoration of the dealership and whether the reasoned rejection of reconsideration justified writ interference.
Held
- The award’s liberty to seek reconsideration did not set aside termination or direct resumption of supplies. Its finding that dealership breaches warranted stern action substantially upheld termination. (¶¶ 12, 14, 34, 39)
- Consideration of the dealer’s later representation was an independent cause of action, separate from the completed arbitration. Restoration remained within Indian Oil’s discretion as principal. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37)
- The rejection gave reasons and disclosed no arbitrariness. In those circumstances, the High Court could not act as an appellate authority and substitute its own administrative decision. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40)
Result
Appeal allowed; Division Bench judgment set aside and Single Judge’s judgment restored. The dealer’s writ petition stands dismissed.