C.W.P. No.18063 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.18063 of 2011 Date of Decision.26.09.2011 M/s Shubh H.P. Petroleum, HPC Petrol Pump, Dabwali Abohar Road, Village Bhitiwala, District Muktsar through its Proprietor Ravi Kumar son of Sh. Bishamber Dass .....Petitioner Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, registered office 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 through its Managing Director and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks for a challenge against the termination of dealership agreement on the ground that Corporation had not joined the petitioner with all the necessary details relating to the alleged deficiency found out in the manner of the installations. There is a clear cut clause providing for termination of the dealership agreement under certain contingencies and on the alleged happening of such contingency, the termination has been effected. 2. The dealership agreement also calls for arbitration clause under Clause 40, which reads as follows:- “40. Arbitration (a) Any dispute or different of any nature whatsoever, any claim, cross claim, counter claim or set off or regarding C.W.P. No.18063 of 2011 -2- any right, liability, act, omission or account of any of the parties hereto arising out or in relation to his agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Chairman & Managing Director of the Corporation who may either himself act as the arbitrator. The dealer will not be entitled to raise any objection to any such arbitrator on the ground that the arbitrator is an officer of the Corporation. (b) to (k) xxxx xxxx xxxx 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and others Vs. Super Highway Services and another (2010) 3 SCC 321 while taking up the issue of maintainability of writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in respect of existing arbitration clause in the agreement, the entitlement to seek a remedy from writ Court cannot be doubted at a higher forum, when the non-maintainability of the writ petition was not taken up before the High Court. In matters relating to arbitration, issue of waiver or acquiescence is always relevant and if an objection regarding arbitration caluse is not taken up at the earliest time, there would be no bar to exercise the jurisdiction itself. We are not now examining the situation of the respondent acquiescing in jurisdiction. On the other hand, when there is a clause mentioned there in the document, there is no reason to skirt the procedure. The learned also refers a judgment in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Kamal Sharma in LPA No.599 of 2010 dated 07.05.2010 to support his plea through this writ petition. In the said case, the Division Bench has held that interest of C.W.P. No.18063 of 2011 -3- justice would be served if show cause notice was issued within one week to the counsel of respondent and the reply would be taken within a week thereafter. The issue of the operation of the arbitration agreement was simply not there before the Court. I do not find any of the decisions decisions cited above has any bearing to the contentions raised before me. 4. The writ petition is dismissed but the petitioner will have an appropriate remedy through an arbitral agreement found expressed through the dealership agreement. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 26, 2011 Pankaj*