WPMS/1612/2024 on 27 August, 2025

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
Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
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