WPMS/1612/2024
2025 Latest Caselaw 3735 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/1612/2024 on 27 August, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                          2025:UHC:7613
               Office Notes,
              reports, orders
SL.           or proceedings
      Date                                    COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.          or directions and
             Registrar's order
             with Signatures
                                 WPMS 1612/2024
                                 Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. (2) Petitioner was appointed dealer for retail sale of petroleum products by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The dealership agreement executed between petitioner and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. contains arbitration clause. Petitioner's dealership agreement has been terminated, which is under challenge in this writ petition. (3) Learned Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. refers to Clause 62 of dealership agreement, which contains arbitration clause, and the same is reproduced below:

"62. Any dispute or difference arising under or in connection with this contract Arbitration shall be referred to a Sole Arbitrator as per the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 as amended vide Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015 or as amended from time to time thereafter."

(4) Since every dispute or difference arising under or in connection with dealership agreement is referable to the sole arbitrator and termination of dealership of the petitioner is a dispute arising out of the agreement, therefore, on this sole ground, this Court declines to entertain the writ petition.

                                 (5)      Learned         Counsel         for        the
                                                                                                 2025:UHC:7613

petitioner relies upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd, (2011) 5 SCC 697, and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, (2003) 2 SCC 107, for contending that presence of arbitration clause cannot operate as a bar to entertain the writ petition.

(6) Even though presence of arbitration clause may not be absolute bar for entertaining the writ petition, however it is a self-imposed restriction by constitutional courts that where a party has equally efficacious remedy, the writ petition is ordinarily not maintainable. (7) Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the arbitration clause as per the provisions of relevant statute.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

27.8.2025 Pr PRABODH

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF

2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d46

KUMAR 2503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58 C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.08.27 18:31:40 +05'30' 2025:UHC:7613