S. B. Sinha, J. - (1.) The scope and ambit of judicial review vis-a-vis availability of alternative remedy is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 29.04.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.830 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the Appellant herein was dismissed in limine.
(2.) The Appellant herein and one Smt. Bimladevi T. Obhan, who were partners in M/s Tilak Automobiles and the Respondent herein entered into a dealership agreement. Admittedly the said agreement was terminated by the Respondent herein by a notice dated 19.03.2004 in terms of Clause 55 of the said agreement which reads thus : "55. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, the Corporation shall be at liberty to terminate this Agreement forthwith upon or at any time after the happening of any of the following, namely :- (A) If the Dealer shall commit a breach of any of the covenants and stipulations contained in the Agreement, and fail to remedy such breach within four days of the receipt of a written notice from the Corporation in that regard; (B) Upon (i) The death or adjudication as insolvent of the Dealer, if he be an individual; (ii) The dissolution of the partnership of the dealers firm or the death or adjudication as insolvent of any partner of the firm if the Dealer be a firm. (iii) The liquidation, whether voluntary or otherwise or the passing of an effective resolution for the winding up, if the dealer be a company or a co-operative society."
(3.) According to the Respondent, the said agreement came to an end on the death of the said Bimladevi. However, the dealership was allowed to continue having regard to a representation made by the Appellant herein that the firm had certain outstandings in the market which were in danger of becoming unrecoverable, if the supplies were suddenly stopped. The Respondent agreed to continue supplies to the Appellant on purely ad hoc basis.;