- (1.) All these four appeals are directed against the orders passed by the District Judge on applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Cancellation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as an 'Act') initially granting conditional interim protection and subsequently declining interim protection both at the stage of suspension of supply and thereafter on the termination of the dealership.
(2.) The facts in brief as emerging from pleadings which deserves to be mentioned are:- Samay Singh, the sole Proprietor of M/s Deobhumi Gas Service, Narendranagar, district Tehri Garhwal in Uttarakhand was sanctioned dealership for distribution of liquid petroleum gas (L.P.G. for short hereinafter) by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") in a Scheduled Caste Category. A dealership contract was entered into between the parties on 1.3.2008 and the distribution business commenced. Later a dispute arose between the two as dealers of Rishikesh and Dehradun continued or started distribution of L.P.G. in the area allotted to M/s Deobhumi Gas Service. Accordingly, Samay Singh invoked arbitration clause 39 of the agreement. The dispute was referred by the Corporation vide order dated 28.1.2010 to the Sole Arbitrator.
(3.) On 12.4.2010 Corporation suspended the supplies to M/s. Deobhumi Gas Service. The said order was challenged by Samay Singh by filing Writ Petition No.5320 of 2010 before the Nainital High Court. It was disposed of vide order dated 16.4.2010 holding that there is an alternative remedy. Accordingly, Samay Singh applied for enlargement of the scope of the dispute referred to the Arbitrator. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation vide order dated 21.5.2010 enlarged the scope of Arbitration and the dispute regarding suspension of sales and supplies was also referred to the same Arbitrator who was seized with the dispute with regard to the area of distribution.;