12 July 2021| Indian Oil Corporation v. Tapas Kumar Das | AP No. No. 827 2018 | Moushumi Bhattacharya J | 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 2050

The respondent had raised a dispute on the termination (by IOC) of his dealership. In arbitration, some of the respondent’s claims were allowed. IOC applied to set aside the award in 2018 within limitation and in 2021 applied to amend the set-aside grounds. The proposed grounds concerned the “Marketing Discipline Guidelines” framed by the Ministry of Petroleum regulating some types of dealership granted by public oil companies like IOC.

IOC’s case was jurisdictional that the Guidelines provided an appellate remedy from termination, without following which the respondent invoked arbitration, and thus the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction. Though the Guidelines were referred to in the grounds, the jurisdictional point was not taken.

Allowing the proposed amendment that sought to incorporate the Guidelines in the set-aside grounds, Bhattacharya J found and ruled as follows:-

1. A new ground is generally not permitted because Section 34 (3) ACA provides a specific time frame to challenge an award. Thus, allowing the addition of a new ground would defeat the objective of the ACA.
2. But a ground that has a foundational link to the unamended ground would pass muster.
3. The relevant test is whether the petitioner would be constrained to file a new application to challenge the award. The petitioner passes this test because the Guidelines constitute a significant part of the record and concern an important challenge. Thus, it goes to the root and should be allowed to determine the real question in controversy.

For the delay in applying, the court imposed a cost of INR twenty-five thousand.

Read the judgment here.