AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sl.
No.",Tank Truck No.,Observation of deviations.
1.,DL1 GB 5501,"Fresh painting marks,  false
chamber observed.
2.,DL1 GB 4988,"Epicoating inside the tank with
fresh painting was  observed.
Painting marks observed, welding
in the TT, variation with respect
to approved explosive drawing.
3.,DL1 GB 6633,"Variation with respect to approved
explosive drawing. Fresh paint in
compartment
4.,HR 55 5126,"The size of the tank was found to
be having variation with respect to
the approved explosive drawing.
5.,HR 55 E 5767,"Variation with respect to approved
explosive drawing
or ulterior motive leveled against Respondent. However, In case of all IT's Inspection report as well as the findings of the officials of the respondent",,
does not clearly establish any excess supply taken by the claimants, this has also been upheld by the decision of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka",,
Delhi. Therefore, there is no justification for any recovery -towards excess supply from the claimants. Recoveries made must be refunded.",,
Para 8 of the decision of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Delhi stated that there was no evidence with regard to false compartment as well as",,
excess supply, this is decision and finding of the court which has reached finality has to be respected.",,
I am of the opinion that findings of the Sr. Installation Manager and officers of the respondent corporation with regard to other unauthorized physical,,
changes, variation with •approved explosive drawings have not been dealt by the court cannot be disregarded only on the basis of denial by the",,
claimants. These findings attract provisions of the transport discipline guidelines which as per the transport agreement the claimant is bound to follow.,,
The findings constitute malpractice under these guidelines and therefore I am of the opinion that looking to the totality of the facts respondents have,,
been justified in the blacklisting the Tank Trucks of claimant and terminating the Agreement in terms of POL Transport Discipline Guideline and,,
Industry Transport Guidelines.â€,,
A reading of the above findings of the Arbitrator would show that the same are contradictory in nature. On one hand, the Arbitrator has held that",,
the respondent had not clearly established any excess supply taken by the petitioner and therefore, there was no justification for any recovery made",,
from the petitioner towards excess supply and also held that the decision of the Metropolitan Magistrate that there was no evidence with regard to,,
false compartment has to be respected, at the same time, based on the unproved report has held that the “other unauthorized physical changes,",,
variation with approved explosive drawings have not been dealt with by the Court and cannot be disregardedâ€, and that the respondent has been able",,
to justify the order of blacklisting passed against the petitioner.,,
As noted above, the Inspection Report with respect to the Tank Truck bearing no.DL 1GB 5501 was only with respect to the false chamber in the",,
second compartment. Once the same was held to be unproved, there was no evidence against the petitioner as far as this Tank Truck was concerned.",,
Admittedly, the Inspection Report with respect to the other four trucks was not filed before the Arbitrator and therefore, the findings of the Inspection",,
Report in respect of these trucks had remained unproved. As far as the report against the Tank Truck no.DL 1GB 5501, the Metropolitan Magistrate",,
found that inspection alleged in this report had not been proved by the respondent. Before the Arbitrator no evidence was led by the respondent to,,
prove this report.,,
Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the above said Inspection Report was signed by the proprietor of the petitioner,,
and therefore, stood proved. He submits that the petitioner never denied the signature on the said Inspection Report. On the other hand, counsel for",,
the petitioner draws my attention to the reply given by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice as also to the affidavit by way of evidence filed before,,
the Arbitrator clearly contending that the petitioner was made to sign on certain papers as a condition for release of the trucks. This was a matter to,,
be considered by the Arbitrator. A reading of the Award would show that the Arbitrator has not considered this issue at all. The Arbitrator, as noted",,
above, in fact, has given contradictory findings with respect to the said report.",,
In view of the above, the Impugned Award, except in so far as it directs refund of the recoveries made by the respondent to the petitioner, cannot",,
be sustained and is set aside, leaving it open to the parties to pursue their remedies in accordance with the law. There shall be no order as to cost.",,
The finding of the Arbitrator on issue of recoveries is being upheld as there is no challenge made to the same by the respondent.,,