/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO535 OF 2008 Shri Santosh V. Kolhapure ...Applicant Vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Anr. ...Respondents --- Mr.A.S. Patil for Respondent No.2 H.C. Toor i/b. R.P. Gorjar i/b. Juris Consultus for Respondent no.1 ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 4TH AUGUST,2008 P.C. 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. The Applicant has filed this petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996. He is seeking the following reliefs: “(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain Respondent No.1 from issuing Letter of Indent [L.O.I] in favour of any of the selected candidate thereby allotting new LPG Distributorship at Village Kavathemahankal, Dist. Sangli, pending the arbitration claim before Sole Arbitrator Mr.P.K. Julka, for final award. (b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Application this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the / 2 / Respondent No.1, from issuing any Letter of Intent [L.O.I] in favour of any of the selected candidate thereby allotting the New LPG Distributorship for the said Kavethemahankal area, Dist. Sangli, and further restrain the Respondent No.1 from creating any third party interest for the said LPG Distributorship.” It is submitted that the Respondent no.1 had awarded LPG Distributorship to the Applicant. However, thereafter on account of ill health, the Applicant was not in a position to carry on business of distributorship at Kavethemahankal, Dist. Kolhapur. He, therefore, submitted his resignation on 12th April, 2004. It is the case of the Applicant that he had written a letter dated 20.2.2003 to the Respondent No.1 requesting them to permit him to take working partner in the business. However, Corporation declined to accept this request and thereafter the Applicant tendered his resignation on 12.4.2004. It is the case of the Applicant that he made an application under the Right to Information Act and he was informed that the Corporation has permitted other agents to appoint third party as working partner. He, therefore, again requested to the Corporation that to permit him to take working partner. This request was declined, therefore the matter was referred / 3 / to an Arbitrator. An application was filed by him under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for an interim relief. The Applicant claimed the following reliefs before the Learned Arbitrator: “(a) Your Honour may be pleased to pass necessary orders and directions thereby retraining the Respondents, their agents, employees, officers, servants or anybody claiming through or under the Respondents be restrained by order and injunction from deputing, appointing any person or persons or body corporate as their distributor in respect of the subject site at Kavate Mahankal (Dist. Sangli) in place of the Claimant or in any manner from doing any act which would affect the rights and entitlement of the Claimant in respect of the subject site.” 2. The learned Arbitrator, however, rejected the application for interim relief by an order dated 18th February, 2008. Thereafter, the Arbitrator has communicated to the parties that the matter is kept for declaration of the award. The learned Counsel for the Applicant firstly submitted that in view of the policy of the Corporation to permit the agents to have working partner, it was incumbent upon the Corporation to permit him to carry on the business as working partner. It is submitted that after the resignation of the Applicant / 4 / was accepted, the Respondent Corporation had invited applications for the said dealership for LPG Gas and interviews were held and appointment letter was likely to be issued to the selected candidates. He submitted that it was necessary that the Corporation be restrained from appointing any person as a distributor or dealer. He submitted that if the third party will be appointed as a dealer/ distributor, the arbitration proceeding become infructuous. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Corporation on the other hand submitted that the Applicant had filed an application for an interim relief under section 17 of the said Act and the said relief was not granted. He submitted that an appeal was maintainable against the said order. As the Applicant had chosen not to file an appeal and, therefore, this application under section 9 is filed. He, therefore, submitted that under clause 37 (b) of the agreement, Pune Court alone shall have jurisdiction to entertain and decide any application or other proceedings in respect of any dispute arising under the agreement. He submitted that therefore, this Application under section 9 was also not maintainable in this case. He lastly submitted that the Applicant had unilaterally tendered his resignation and it was accepted by the Corporation under clause 28 of the said agreement and there being the provision though not open for the Applicant to claim any interim relief. He also submitted that by virtue of section 14 r/w. Section 41 (e), the Applicant was / 5 / not entitled to seek an order of injunction in respect of the contract, which was not specific. 4. There is much substance in the submission made by the Counsel on behalf of the Respondent in respect of the clause 27(b) under the said agreement which clearly states that the jurisdiction to decide this dispute will be at Pune Court alone and, therefore, this application under section 9 in any case is not maintainable in this Court. Apart from that, it is an admitted position that the Applicant had filed an application under section 17 of the said Act and his application for interim relief is rejected. The said order is an appealable order and the Petitioner could have filed an appeal under section 37. The said appeal could have been entertained only by the Pune Court. The relief claimed by the Applicant in the application is identical to the relief claimed by him under section 17 of the said Act. On this ground also the application is not maintainable. 5. Thirdly, even on merits, prima facie it appears that the Applicant has been chosen to unilaterally terminated his agreement and the Corporation have accepted his termination under clause 28. It is not open for the Applicant now to claim any order for setting aside the said acceptance of the resignation by the Corporation. Therefore, there is no merit for the submissions made by the learned Counsel. Application is disposed of. Interim / 6 / order is vacated. V.M. KANADE J.