Fao(os) 99.2009 Page 1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) 99/2009 Date of Decision: 25rd March, 2009 HPCL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Raju Ramchandran, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Advocate. versus M/S KUMAR SERVICE STATION ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may No be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest? % JUDGMENT (Oral) MUKUL MUDGAL,J 1 Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Amritsar Gas Service, (1991) 1 SCC 533 and Hindustan petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Sriman Narayan, (2002) 5 SCC 760. He submits that the impugned order could not be passed as it amounted to restoration of dealership contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Fao(os) 99.2009 Page 2 of 2 2 We are of the view that the appellant has approached the Division Bench in appeal without approaching the learned Single Judge for variation or vacation of the order dated 6.03.2009. In our view, the appropriate course of action for the appellant to adopt would be to move an application under Section 39 (4) C.P.C. before the learned Single Judge. We have no doubt and indeed expect that learned Single Judge will decide the OMP and the application for the vacation of stay, if moved, on or before 25.05.2009. 3 With these directions the appeal is permitted to be withdrawn and stands disposed off. MUKUL MUDGAL,J VIPIN SANGHI, J MARCH 25, 2009 dp