/ 1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.7 OF 2008 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8 OF 2008 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.7 OF 2008 Mr.Sanjay Dattu Tarate ...Appellant V/s. M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Pesi Modi a/w Ms.Sunita Masoni, Amit Jajoo, Mr.Jadhav, Mr.Nityandi Nadar, Mr.Sandesh Patil i/b. N.C. Dalal & Co. for Appellant. Mr.G.R. Joshi i/b. RMG Law Associates for Respondent No.1. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : 25th APRIL, 2008. P.C.:- 1. Appellant is challenging the order passed by the Ad-Hoc District Judge, Khed in Civil Application No.1/2008 U/s.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. By the said order, the Application filed by he Appellant herein seeking interim relief U/s.9 of the said Act, was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 11th January, 2008. / 2/ 2. Brief facts, in a nutshell, are that the Appellant was given a Petrol Pump at village Sawarde Tal. Chiplun. Accordingly, an agreement to that effect was executed between the parties. A show cause notice was issued to the Appellant, asking him to show cause why dealership which was given to him should not be cancelled. Appellant gave reply to the show cause notice. However, Respondent cancelled the dealership agreement vide a letter dated 19th January, 2007. Matter was referred to the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chiplun who directed the Respondents to continue the fuel supply to the Petrol Pump. This order was challenged by the Respondents by filing a Writ Petition in this Court. This Writ Petition was allowed and the Appellant was directed to file an application U/s.9 of the said Act to the District Judge. Interim relief, however, continued for a period of two weeks in order to enable the Appellant to seek appropriate remedy before the District Court. Appellant, however, preferred an application U/s.9 of the said Act in the District Court in December,2007. Said application was, however, rejected by the District Judge. Being aggrieved by the said order, Appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that Civil Judge, Junior / 3/ Division had referred the matter to Arbitrator since the Respondents had agreed to continue the fuel supply during the pendency of the arbitration. He submitted that since said concession was given by the Respondents, the District Judge ought to have continued the interim order. It was further submitted that the District Judge had erred in relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court as the ratio of the said judgment was not applicable to the facts of the present case. He invited my attention to the judgment in the case of Indian Oil corporation Ltd V/s. Amritsar Gas Service and Ors. reported in (1991)1 Supreme Court Cases 533 and M/s.Vidya Securities Ltd v/s. M/s. Comfort Living Hotels Pvt. Ltd reported in AIR 2003 Delhi 214. 4. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Appellant. It is an admitted position that the Appellant was granted two weeks' time to prefer an application and interim order which was granted was continued only for two weeks. Appellant, however, filed the said application in the District Judge after lapse of almost 5 to 6 months. In the present case, dealership agreement has been terminated by the Respondents and after a show cause was issued to the Appellant herein, an opportunity was given to him to give reply to the said show cause notice and after / 4/ considering explanation which was given by the Appellant, said agreement has been terminated. Therefore, even otherwise at the interim stage if a direction is given to the Respondent- company to resume supply of Petrol Pump, it would amount to passing a final order in favour of the Appellant during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. Even otherwise, the Trial court has applied its mind and given cogent reasons while rejecting the application for grant of interim relief. If the Appellant succeeds before the Arbitral Tribunal, he would get damages for the loss suffered by him on account of fuel not being supplied to him. Learned counsel for the Appellant tried to distinguish the judgment on which reliance was placed by the Respondents. However, in my view the ratio of the judgment squarely applies to the facts of the case. No case is made out by the Appellant for grant of interim relief as prayed by him. 5. It is further clarified that the Arbitral Tribunal shall not be influenced by any observations made by the District Court or this Court while passing the order which is impugned in this appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. 6. In view of disposal of Appeal, nothing survives in the Civil / 5/ Application. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. ( V.M. KANADE, J.)