ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) A retail outlet dealership agreement dated 7.5.2010 was executed between the applicant and the non applicants. On 19.9.2012, an inspection was carried out by the non applicants at the business premises of the applicant, where variation in the physical stock was found. Accordingly, sale and supply of petrol / diesel at the retail outlet of applicant firm was stopped. A show cause notice was sent to the applicant by the non applicants on 19.2.2013, which was replied by the applicant on 9.3.2013. Thereafter on 26.6.2013, a notice to terminate the dealership agreement was sent by the non applicants to the applicant, which was replied by the applicant on 13.8.2013. Without awaiting a decision on the notice and reply thereto, the applicant filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13095/2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 3.7.2014. The Court instead of interfering with the show cause notices directed the non applicants to regulate their action under the Marketing and Discipline Guidelines (for short, 'MDG') operative 8.1.2013. Pursuant to the Court's order dated 3.7.2014, a show cause notice was again sent to the applicant on 12.8.2014, which was replied by the applicant. On 7.5.2012 the non applicants sought to terminate dealership agreement, which was resisted by the applicant vide letter dated 5.6.2015. The applicant's dealership was however terminated on 18.1.2016. Thereagainst an appeal as provided for under the MDG was filed by the applicant before the appellate authority. That appeal is pending adjudication.
(2.) The applicant has now filed the application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act of 1996') invoking the arbitration clause in the dealership agreement dated 7.5.2010.
(3.) Counsel for the applicant submitted that the alleged variation in the stock was wrongly found on misapplication of the Indian Oil Corporation's Policy and MDG. He submitted that the internal mechanism under the MDG aside, as there is an arbitration clause 62 in the dealership agreement dated 7.5.2010, the applicant cannot be denied resort thereto and in any event the internal mechanism under the MDG cannot circumvent the right to an independent adjudication of the disputes through arbitration under the dealership agreement in issue.;