PAWAN UPADHYAY Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
LAWS(UTN)-2012-4-86
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on April 11,2012

Pawan Upadhyay Appellant
VERSUS
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.S. Verma, J. - (1.) (Stay Application No. 3094 of 2012) Heard. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23 -3 -2012 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition), whereby the dealership of the petitioner has been terminated for violation of Clause Nos. 34, 45 and 46 of the dealership agreement dated 8 -12 -2004.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents Mr. I.P.Kohli, Advocate, has raised a preliminary objection that there is an arbitration clause no. 62 and sub -clause (a) thereof reads as under: - 62. Arbitration. (a) Any dispute or difference of any nature whatsoever, any claim, cross -claim, counter -claim or set off or regarding any right, liability, act, omission or account of any of the parties hereto arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Director (Marketing) of IBP who may either himself act as the Arbitrator or nominate some other officer of IBP to act as the Arbitrator. The Dealer will not be entitled to raise any objection to any such Arbitrator on the ground that the Arbitrator is an officer of IBP. Therefore, in view of the fact that there is an arbitration clause in the dealership agreement and that an alternate remedy is available to the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed in limine on the ground of alternate remedy.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.