Delhi Gate Auto Service Station & Ors vs B.P.C.L., Agra Th. Sr.Div.Manager & Ors
- SCC(2009) 16 SCC 766
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a party to an agreement containing an arbitration clause pursues both arbitration and writ petition remedies simultaneously in respect of the same subject-matter, the writ petition cannot be entertained, as parallel remedies cannot be pursued concurrently.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
DELHI GATE AUTO SERVICE STATION & .......APPELLANT(S) ORS.
Versus
B.P.C.L. AGRA TH. SR.DIV. MANAGER & .....RESPONDENT(S) ORS.
WITH C.A.NO. 5827/2006
ORDER
The question in these appeals is regarding the correctness of the judgment of
the High Court dismissing the writ petitions by the appellants herein. The controversy
was regarding dealership of two petrol retail outlets. The dealership was terminated
by the respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 'BPCL' for short. That
termination was challenged. The matter was remanded by the High Court in the first
round with an observation that the BPCL should hear the appellants and consider the
objections. Accordingly, show-cause notice was issued. That show-cause notice was
also replied to by the appellants by giving various reasons as to why the termination
should not have been effected. Later on, the BPCL terminated the dealership. That
was challenged by filing writ petitions. However, as per the terms of the agreement of
dealership, the appellants also approached the arbitration. Now it is reported that
arbitration is over and the award has gone against the appellants which award has also
been further challenged.
......2.
-2-
2. In that view, it will not be possible for us to entertain this appeal. In fact, the writ petitions itself could not have been entertained on the ground that two parallel
remedies could not have been pursued by the appellants at one and the same time. The
writ petition was rightly dismissed. We do not find any merit in these appeals. They
are dismissed without any order as to costs. This order should not be viewed as any
expression on the merits of the matters.
...........................J. ( V.S. SIRPURKAR )
New Delhi; ...........................J. May 25, 2009. ( R.M. LODHA )
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free