- (1.) By this appeal the appellant has impugned the judgment and order dated 11th November, 2010 passed by the then 2nd Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta in Miscellaneous Case No. 1208 of 2010. By the judgment and order the prayer for injunction restraining the respondent from giving effect to the order of termination of dealership was refused. The fact leading to filing the aforesaid Miscellaneous Application in the learned Court below and then preferring appeal is set out briefly as hereunder. The appellant herein contends that his father obtained the Petroleum Pump Dealership of the respondent and as such the said business was set up under the name and style of M/s. Bhowmik Service Station at a place in the District of Nadia. However, after death of his father by subsequent agreement dated 10th May, 1978, the appellant retained the said dealership of the respondent No. 1 under the same business name. The agreement was signed by the appellant as a sole proprietor of the said business on one hand and the appropriate officials of the respondent on the other. Pursuant thereto until the time hereinafter mentioned there has been no problem on either side as the appellant without any disturbance whatsoever carried on business of dealership. On 14th July, 1997 by a letter the respondent suspended the dealership of the appellant by reason of being convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Nadia in Sessions Case No. 7 of 1996 and Trial Case No. 10 of 1997 under section 302/102B of IPC.
(2.) Thereafter, an appeal being preferred to the Hon'ble High Court and on being released on bail by the First Appellate Court the appellant made a representation to the respondent for revoking the said order of suspension of dealership. Allowing such representation the respondent withdrew this order of suspension and restored the supply to his retail outlet on and from 5th September, 1997. There had been uninterrupted supply of petroleum product to the said outlet of the appellant till a snow-cause notice was issued on 22nd March, 2010. In between 5th September. 1997 and 22nd March, 2010, the appeal against the conviction and sentence of the appellant was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court in its Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction by judgment and order dated 14th May, 2008. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said judgment and order of this Court by filing a Criminal Appeal being No. 122 of 2008. In the said appeal the appellant herein duly applied for granting bail, which was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 4th August, 2008.
(3.) The factum of disposal of the appeal by the Division Bench of this High Court in Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction and also preferring appeal before the Supreme Court therefrom, and granting of bail was duly communicated to the respondent. On 22nd March, 2010 the respondent issued a show-cause notice for termination of the dealership on two grounds namely committing breach of the conditions under Clause 47(h) of the said agreement and also on the ground of conviction in the said criminal case under clause 58(d) of the said dealership agreement. It appears from the records that the said show-cause notice was challenged in the writ jurisdiction by the appellant however, the same was not pressed by obtaining order of withdrawal. On 6th June, 2010 the appellant sought for personal hearing which was granted by the respondent on 21st June, 2010. On 12th August, 2010, the petitioner herein moved an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned 3rd Bench, City Civil Court being Misc. Case No. 1208 of 2010. On the same date the learned Judge passed an ad interim order of injunction restraining the respondent herein from terminating his dealership till 10th September, 2010. The respondent against the aforesaid ex parte order of injunction preferred appeal in this Hon'ble Court on 10th September, 2010 and on that date this Hon'ble High Court was pleased to vacate the interim order. This Hon'ble Court at the same time directed the learned Trial Judge to decide the pending interlocutory application under section 9 expeditiously.;