Madras High Court
A/1787/2026 of M.Sathyamoorthy Vs Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited on 16 October 2026
A No. 1787 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
A No. 1787 of 2026
M.Sathyamoorthy
..Applicant(s)
Vs
1. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited Bharath Bhavan, Rep by its Territory Manager, L.P.G., No.4 and 6, Currimbhai road, Ballard Estae, Mumbai -9.
2. The Regional Manager
LPG., Bharat Petroleum Coxporation Limited, Ranganathan Garden, Amanagar, Chennai.
3. The Territory Manager, LPG,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
No.1644, Peelamedu, Coimbatore - 004.
..Respondent(s)
Judge’s Summons filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 2(1)(c)
(viii) (ix) and Section 7 and Section 10(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, praying to extend the period under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by six months for completion of the arbitration proceedings by the arbitrator.
For Applicant(s):
M/s.A.L.Ganthimathi
Senior Counsel
For Mr.L.Palanimuthu
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:17 pm )
A No. 1787 of 2026
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Anirudh Krishnan
(For R1 to R3)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This application has been filed to extend the period under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by six months for completion of the arbitration proceedings by the arbitrator.
2. Heard M/s.AL.Ganthimathi, learned Senior Counsel, for Mr.L.Palanimuthu, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr.Anirudh Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent made a statement that, by virtue of the protection granted by this Court in W.P.No.7291 of 2022 and 1788 of 2023, the advertisement issued by the 1st respondent on 28.12.2022 had not been given effect to and would seek the indulgence of this Court, as the present application had been filed beyond the period of expiry of the mandate.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant had approached this Court in Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.).No.37 of 2026, seeking termination of the mandate and for reconstitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. However, noting that the mandate had expired, this Court, while
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:17 pm )
A No. 1787 of 2026
leaving it open to the respective parties to raise their objections over the continuation of the learned Arbitrator, if an application under Section 29A is filed, had closed the said petition. Now, the applicant has taken out the present petition, seeking for extension of the mandate and in that regard, she would submit that the applicant had bona fide reasons for earlier approaching this Court under Section 15 read with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act earlier.
5. Since the agreement between the parties relates to a dealership agreement for supply of L.P.G, this Court had called upon the learned counsel for the respondents to find out as to how it has been servicing the LPG customers since there has been a prohibition for them to appoint a new dealer in the place of the petitioner. On instructions, he would submit that an existing dealer in the region have been entrusted with the responsibility of supply LPG cylinders. Hence, this Court is of the view that the order passed by this Court in the writ petitions, prohibiting the respondents from proceeding with the advertisement calling for appointment of a new dealer, does not have any impact on the consumers of such LPG cylinders.
6. In view of the consensus between the learned counsels appearing on either side, the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a period of six
(6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:17 pm )
A No. 1787 of 2026
7. In fine, this application stands ordered. No costs. 01-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No kak To
1. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited Bharath Bhavan, Rep by its Territory Manager, L.P.G., No.4 and 6, Currimbhai road, Ballard Estae, Mumbai -9.
2. The Regional Manager LPG., Bharat Petroleum Coxporation Limited, Ranganathan Garden, Amanagar, Chennai.
3. The Territory Manager, LPG, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, No.1644, Peelamedu, Coimbatore - 004.
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:17 pm )
A No. 1787 of 2026
K.KUMARESH BABU, J. kak A No. 1787 of 2026 01-07-2026
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:17 pm )
A No. 1787 of 2026
A.No.1787 of 2026 K.KUMARESH BABU, J. This matter has been listed today under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel for the applicant indicating that the period of extension sought for was six months, but however, the Court had only ordered six weeks.
2. It is to be noted that a mandate would have to be for a period of six months, but not six weeks. But however, inadvertently, the order dated 01.07.2026 reflects to have extended the mandate only for a period of six weeks. Hence, the word weeks in the last line of paragraph 6 of the order dated 01.07.2026, shall be deleted and months shall be incorporated and a fresh order copy shall be issued.
16.10.2026
abr
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:17 pm )
A No. 1787 of 2026
K.KUMARESH BABU, J. abr A.No.1787 of 2026 16.10.2026
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:17 pm )